IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jiplap/v16y2021i2p92-94..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit finds that administrative patent judges were unconstitutionally appointed in case now the subject of multiple appeals to the US Supreme Court

Author

Listed:
  • Charles R Macedo
  • David P Goldberg
  • Chandler Sturm

Abstract

On 31 October 2020, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (‘Federal Circuit’) issued a decision in Arthrex, Inc v Smith & Nephew, Inc finding that administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board were appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution and instituting measures to remedy the situation. On 23 March 2020, the Federal Circuit refused to the rehear the case sitting en banc. Since then, the panel decision has become the subject of multiple appeals to the US Supreme Court. We expect to learn in early autumn whether the US Supreme Court decides to grant certiorari with respect to any of the appeals and review this important decision.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles R Macedo & David P Goldberg & Chandler Sturm, 2021. "US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit finds that administrative patent judges were unconstitutionally appointed in case now the subject of multiple appeals to the US Supreme Court," Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 92-94.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:92-94.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiplp/jpaa197
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:92-94.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiplp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.