• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
    • Alumni
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Indianapolis
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Miami
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
    • Newark
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Food & Beverage
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Hospitality
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Public Finance
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Insights Publication Magazine Corner
Main image for Is Arthrex Uncertainty Leading to the Supreme Court?
Publications|Alert

Is Arthrex Uncertainty Leading to the Supreme Court?

Intellectual Property Alert

11.9.2019

Last week, we alerted you that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals called all recent final inter partes review (IPR) decisions into question. Today, we alert you to increasing uncertainty in the wake of the Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, et al. decision.

Within a week of Arthrex, the Court of Appeals was faced with a number of requests for its IPR rehearing remedy. In Bedgear v. Freedman Brothers Furniture Co., a new panel of the Court of Appeals granted another IPR the rehearing remedy because Arthrex required it. Nonetheless, a concurrence by two of the three judges on the Bedgear panel disagreed with Arthrex’s IPR rehearing remedy.

In Arthrex, a panel of the Court of Appeals suggested many recent IPR decisions may be subject to rehearing. After finding that administrative patent judges (APJs) had been unconstitutionally appointed, the panel eliminated the appointment problem prospectively by interpreting the law to allow the Patent Office Director to dismiss APJs without cause. Arthrex remedied the related problem that the APJs’ IPR decision at issue was unconstitutionally derived by remanding the IPR for rehearing by different APJs.

In a concurrence, two judges on the Bedgear panel called the rehearing remedy incorrect. According to them, Arthrex’s elimination of the unconstitutional appointment of APJs was “necessarily retrospective.” In other words, the “statute … must be read as though the APJs had always been constitutionally appointed.” In their view, IPR decisions “should … not [be] vacated for a new hearing before a different panel” of APJs.

The disagreement among the Court of Appeals judges indicates that Arthrex will likely be reconsidered by the Court of Appeals as a whole and possibly by the Supreme Court. If the Bedgear concurrence position prevails, it is unclear how the Patent Office should handle the IPRs that were remanded. If the Arthrex position prevails, the concurring Bedgear judges foresee another uncertainty problem: When does Arthrex’s elimination of the APJ appointment problem become effective such that APJs are empowered to render constitutional decisions?

In other words, it is uncertain whether APJs are now empowered to render constitutional decisions or their decisions continue to suffer from a constitutional defect. It is now uncertain whether an appointments clause challenge will entitle a party appealing an IPR decision to any remedy. And it also is uncertain how the Patent Office should now handle pending and remanded IPRs.

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Kia L. Freeman
Kia L. Freeman

Partner

Media item: Thomas F. Foley
Thomas F. Foley

Associate

Related Services

Intellectual Property
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2023 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel