• 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 Uncertainty Remains—Fixing Unconstitutionality of IPR Decisions
Publications|Alert

Uncertainty Remains—Fixing Unconstitutionality of IPR Decisions

Intellectual Property Alert

3.24.2020

By denying rehearing of a judicial panel’s original decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, et al., the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals as a whole has effectively confirmed that inter partes reviews (IPRs) have been unconstitutional. As we reported in our Intellectual Property Alert last November, the earlier panel decision found that (a) a constitutionality problem infected all IPRs, (b) the problem was properly resolved by striking a portion of the patent statute, and (c) the problem entitles affected parties who properly request it to a rehearing of their IPRs. The extensive concurring and dissenting opinions reveal the extent and the strength of the disagreement within the court. Ultimately, the Supreme Court or Congress may need to step in to settle the issue.

The disagreement begins over whether there even is a constitutional problem. The Constitution requires that any “principal officer” be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. IPRs are decided by administrative patent judges (APJs). According to the original panel decision by three Federal Circuit judges, the problem stems from the APJs’ independence or lack of supervision, which was enough to qualify them as “principal officers” and make their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce, rather than the President, unconstitutional. In the decision denying rehearing of that earlier decision, 12 Federal Circuit judges weighed in. The dissenting judges (who favored rehearing) disagreed that APJs ever qualified as “principal officers.”

According to the original decision, striking a provision of patent law that limited the Commerce Secretary’s ability to fire APJs eliminated the constitutional problem by rendering the APJs merely “inferior officers” from then on. Dissenting judges, however, reasoned that rewriting the statute to eliminate long-standing termination protection was draconian and not consistent with congressional intent. They opined that a stay of the underlying IPR pending a legislative or Patent Office fix was the appropriate solution to the alleged problem. Nonetheless, the dissenting judges also opined that the panel decision eliminating the APJs’ protections against removal was a judicial interpretation that has an inherently retroactive effect. The dissenting judges reasoned that because the interpretation applied retroactively, it eliminated the constitutional problem with all the previous APJ decisions and obviated the need for any remedy. Accordingly, the judges also split on whether appellants raising this constitutional issue are entitled to any remedy.

In contrast, the supporting judges (who supported the original decision and believed that rehearing would not be prudent) opined that the approach adopted by the Arthrex panel minimized disruption and uncertainty. They opposed rehearing en banc (by the entire court) because it would have unraveled an effective cure and created additional disruption and uncertainty. Considering that the parties and the Department of Justice all sought rehearing of the panel decision, and they received extensive and divergent opinions from various judges, it seems likely that one or more of the parties will seek Supreme Court review. Although rehearing was denied, the concurring and dissenting opinions indicate that uncertainty remains.

The case is Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir., Mar. 23, 2020).

McCarter & English lawyers are well-versed in the practice of post-grant proceedings for both patent owners and challengers, and can help you navigate the IPR process.

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