Post-Grant for Practitioners | After Arthrex: What the Supreme Court's Decision Means

This webinar has ended.


On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in U.S. v. Arthrex, holding that the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Director needs to have the ability to revise decisions by Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) because they are not nominated and confirmed, and the Director is. The Court reasoned that adjudication of private property rights (i.e., patent validity) is of such a nature that the Appointments Clause requires it to be vested in someone directly accountable to the President and the people. So the Court held that the Patent Act should be read to give the Director such authority and discretion, and remanded the case for the Director to implement the holding.

So what does this ruling mean for post-grant practitioners?

In this webinar, Fish attorneys Lauren Degnan, John Dragseth, and Dorothy Whelan lead a lively conversation about the possible repercussions of the Arthrex ruling.

Topics that were covered include:

  • What’s going to happen to Arthrex on remand?
  • What sorts of things might the USPTO do to address the opinion?
  • What does it mean for parties who have preserved this issue and for those who have not?
  • What does it mean for someone currently in an IPR?
  • What does it mean for parties to an IPR in the near future?
  • Does it have any effect on parallel litigation?