Setting the Stage: Court Sets Oral Argument in Arthrex Cases

22 January 2021 PTAB Trial Insights Blog
Authors: Randy J. Pummill Daniel R. Shelton George E. Quillin

The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in the Arthrex cases (docket 19-1434) for March 1, 2021. And, as of January 11, 2021, the Court has accepted the oral argument time divisions proposed by the Acting Solicitor General. The proposal had received the quiet support of the other two parties in the cases, Smith & Nephew and Arthrex.Accordingly, the Court will allocate 15 minutes to the United States, 15 minutes to Smith & Nephew, and the remaining 30 minutes to Arthrex for each to make their case before the Justices. 

In the Arthrex cases, the Court has agreed to consider two questions: (1) whether administrative patent judges are principal or inferior officers for purposes of the Appointments Clause; and (2) whether, if administrative patent judges are principal officers, the Federal Circuit properly cured any Appointments Clause defect by severing the application of 5 U.S.C. 7513(a) to those judges. In their initial merits briefs, the United States and Smith & Nephew have urged the Court either to hold administrative patent judges to be inferior officers or to uphold the remedy provided by the lower court. Arthrex, on the other hand, in its initial merits brief argued that administrative patent judges are principal officers and that any remedy to the current situation should be left to Congress to determine. Such a decision by the Court could have far-reaching consequences

Before oral argument, consolidated response and reply briefs from Smith & Nephew and the United States are due on January 22, 2021. Arthrex may also submit a reply brief, due before February 21, 2021. Continue checking the PTAB Trial Insights Blog for analysis on these and future developments in the upcoming weeks. 

----------------------------------------------------------

1 See Motion of the United States For Divided Argument at 2. 

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