PTAB Orders All Cases Remanded in Light of Arthrex Held in Abeyance

20 May 2020 PTAB Trial Insights Blog
Authors: George C. Beck Bradley Roush

Earlier this month, the Chief Administrative Patent Judge issued a general order holding in abeyance all cases remanded in light of Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019).  As we previously covered, on October 31, 2019, the Federal Circuit held in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320, that PTAB judges (i.e., administrative patent judges, or APJs) were principal officers appointed in violation of the Constitution, and held that the proper remedy was to judicially eliminate their for-cause removal protections.  The Federal Circuit subsequently, on March 23, 2020, denied the parties’ petitions for rehearing en banc.  

In light of the sweeping nature of Arthrex¸ the Federal Circuit has already vacated more than 100 PTAB decisions “and more such Orders are expected.”  Further, several parties have informed the PTAB that they intend to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.    

To avoid unnecessarily burdening the PTAB should the Supreme Court grant such a petition, the general order holds “all such cases in administrative abeyance until the Supreme Court acts on a petition for certiorari or the time for filing such petitions expires.”  As a result, in all likelihood any case remanded in light of Arthrex will not be acted upon by the PTAB until 2021 at the earliest.  

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services