Intellectual Property,
Civil Litigation
Mar. 18, 2020
Arthrex v Smith & Nephew: Is the sky falling, or is it business as usual at the PTAB?
A three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit held that the process by which the secretary of Commerce appoints administrative patent judges, or APJs, to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office violates the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Pilar Stillwater
Molly A. Jones
Counsel
Crowell & Moring LLP
Phone: (415) 986-2800
Email: mojones@crowell.com
UC Hastings COL; San Francisco CA
Molly is counsel in the Intellectual Property and Litigation groups in the firm's San Francisco office.
Briefing on petitions for rehearing has recently closed in a landmark decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last October. A three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit held that the process by which the secretary of Commerce appoints administrative patent judges, or APJs, to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office violates the appointments cl...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In