Tag Archives: U.S. Supreme Court

Will Patents Become More Political? The PTO Begins to Implement Arthrex

In United States v Arthrex, the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. §6(c), which sets forth the authority of Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”) Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”), is unconstitutional because APJs effectively wield the power of principal officers (who require Senate confirmation) while being appointed as inferior officers (who do not require Senate confirmation) … Continue Reading

PTAB Time-Bar Determinations Under 35 U.S.C. §315(b) Are Final and Not Appealable

Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc., f/k/a Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the non-appealability of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institution decisions encompasses PTAB decisions on whether a statutory time bar applies. More specifically, 35 U.S.C. §314(d), which sets forth the finality and nonappealability of … Continue Reading

Exhausted: The Supreme Court Takes The Federal Circuit To Task (Again)

On May 30, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court continued its recent string of decisions reversing Federal Circuit holdings on fundamental issues of patent law.  Taking on patent exhaustion in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., No. 15-1189, the Court unanimously held that that “a patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its … Continue Reading

Shot in the Dark Likely to Reshape the Map of U.S. Patent Litigation

In a somewhat surprising move, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to address the question of the proper forum for patent litigation in TC Heartland, LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341.  Although the U.S. Code contains a special venue provision for patent infringement actions that the Supreme Court had interpreted to be … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Clarifies Standards Governing the Attorneys’ Fees Awards In Copyright Litigation

This morning, the Supreme Court issued its most recent ruling in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., unanimously holding that the “objective reasonableness” of an unsuccessful litigant’s position should be accorded “substantial weight” when awarding attorneys’ fees in copyright cases.  The Court, however, also noted that this factor is not dispositive and district courts … Continue Reading

Attorney Fee-Shifting Awards May Soon Be On The Rise: The Supreme Court Holds That A District Court Possesses Broader Discretionary Powers To Award Attorney-Fees In Exceptional Patent Cases

In its opinions for Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday addressed the standard for awarding attorney fees in patent cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which states that a “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees … Continue Reading
LexBlog