On June 21, 2021, in United States v. Arthrex, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”) Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) are unconstitutionally appointed because they effectively wield the power of principal officers while being appointed as inferior officers. 594 U.S. ____ (2021).… Continue Reading
The Supreme Court arguments in USPTO v. Booking.com B.V.[1] on May 4, 2020, marked a historic first: the Supreme Court held oral arguments remotely, by telephone. As a result, lawyers and Supreme Court enthusiasts were able to listen to the argument in real time. Further, both the Petitioner USPTO and the Respondent Booking.com were represented … Continue Reading
The United States Supreme Court today unanimously decided to permit the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) to continue using a tougher standard for claims construction than the standard applied in litigation. In Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee, the Court ruled that the PTAB’s application of the so-called “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard was consistent … Continue Reading
In its fourth decision in the ten-year litigation between Akamai and Limelight, the Federal Circuit again addresses the issue of so-called divided infringement, this time providing guidance on the requirement that only a “single party” can directly infringe. This case had its most momentous turning point last summer, in June 2014, when the Supreme Court … Continue Reading
In what many are calling a “game changing” decision, on March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court articulated the requirements for standing in false advertising cases brought under the Lanham Act in Lexmark v. Static Control, 572 U.S. ____ (2014). The long-running dispute between Static and Lexmark relates to the replacement toner market for printers. Lexmark … Continue Reading
