Arthrex at the Supreme Court: PTAB Administrative Patent Judges and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution
In this interactive panel, PTAB Committee video conference call, the PTAB Committee will be discussing the Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in a trio of related petitions involving the Federal Circuit’s October 31, 2019 decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew as well as new proposed rulemaking by the PTO with respect to PTAB Practice.Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew: As advocated by amicus curiae Askeladden LLC (represented by co-Chair Charley Macedo from Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP) and NYIPLA, the Supreme Court only accepted the threshold questions as to whether PTAB APJs were principal or inferior officers for purposes of the Appointment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and if so, did the “fix” work.
We will begin our session with a presentation including:
• A refresher of what Arthrex held,
• How it is being criticized/challenged with respect to these threshold issues, and
• A discussion of what is coming next at the Supreme Court.
- Charles Macedo, Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein
- Chandler Sturm, Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein
- CLE Evaluation Form (1 Page)
- Arthrex at the Supreme Court: PTAB Administrative Patent Judges and the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution Presentation (60 Pages)
- United States of America v. Arthrex, Inc., et al. Polaris Innovations Limited, v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc., et al. (17 Pages)
- NYIPLA Urges the Federal Circuit to Review Arthrex (2 Pages)
- NYIPLA Urges the Supreme Court to Review Arthrex and Polaris (1 Page)
Hosted by the PTAB Committee