decision by the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in
Washington, D.C., which reviews patent litigation, likely
reduces the threat that scores of decisions by the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board could be set aside.
In a 3-0 ruling, the court said its decision would be "limited"
to cases in which the board had issued final written decisions,
and litigants appealed the constitutionality of how its judges
It said allowing administrative patent judges to be removed at
will by the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
would make the judges "inferior officers," comply with the U.S.
Constitution's Appointments Clause, and preserve Congress'
chosen means to review patent grants.
"We believe that this, the narrowest revision to the scheme
intended by Congress for reconsideration of patent rights, is
the proper course of action and the action Congress would have
undertaken," Circuit Judge Kimberly Ann Moore wrote.
Thursday's decision came in an appeal by medical device company
Arthrex Inc of a decision by the three-judge patent board panel
that some claims related to its patent for a knotless suture
securing assembly were unpatentable.
The appeals court said the case, brought by rival Smith & Nephew
and its ArthroCare unit, should be heard by a new panel.
Those companies had warned in court papers that a more
far-reaching decision could "open the floodgates" to litigation,
and let hundreds of patentees that suffered defeats before the
patent board to "get a do-over."
Lawyers for Arthrex and Smith & Nephew did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.
Scott McKeown, a partner at Ropes & Gray, estimated that 50 to
75 cases may be reheard because of Thursday's decision.
"The impact on pending cases will be limited to proceedings
where parties have gotten decisions under the old, unsevered
portion of the statute, but have not filed their appeal briefs,"
he said. "The concern had been that all patent decisions from
the board could have been deemed null and void."
Some conservatives supported the patent board's creation in 2011
to rein in trial lawyers, as well as patent "trolls" that
acquire patents for the purpose of seeking licensing fees.
But in recent years they have become critical of board decisions
favoring larger companies over smaller rivals.
The case is Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc et al, U.S. Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 2018-2140.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Richard
[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights
Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.