• Legal Era India
  • Legal Era Global
  • Membership
  • Sign inSUBSCRIBE
Legal Era
X
Sign in
  • Home
  • News
    +
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    +
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    +
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events
  • News
    • From the Courts
    • Policy & Law
    • Supreme Court (India)
    • High Court (India)
    • TAX Updates
    • MARKET WATCH
    • Deal Street
    • Global Insights
    • IBC Cases
    • Hires & Moves
    • IP News
    • Competition Verdict
    • Global Articles
    • Global Deals
  • Articles
    • ABOUT THE LAW
    • AWARDS & ACCOLADES
    • Aerospace
    • Agriculture
    • Alternate Dispute Resolution
    • Banking and Finance
    • Bankruptcy
    • Book Review
    • Bribery & Corruption
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Competition Law
    • Conference Reports
    • Consumer Products
    • Contract
    • Corporate Governance
    • Corporate Law
    • Covid-19
    • Cryptocurrency
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Protection
    • Defence
    • Digital Economy
    • E-commerce
    • Employment Law
    • Energy and Natural Resources
    • Entertainment and Sports Law
    • Environmental Law
    • FDI
    • Food and Beverage
    • Health Care
    • IBC Diaries
    • Insurance Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Law
    • Labour Laws
    • Litigation
    • Litigation Funding
    • Manufacturing
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • NFTs
    • Privacy
    • Private Equity
    • Project Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Risk and Compliance
    • Technology Media and Telecom
    • Tributes
    • Zoom In
    • Take On Board
    • In Focus
    • Law & Policy and Regulation
    • IP & Tech Era
    • Viewpoint
    • Arbitration & Mediation
    • Tax
    • Student Corner
    • ESG
    • Gaming
    • Inclusion & Diversity
  • Law Firms
    • Global Law Firm
    • Asia Law Firm
    • India Law Firm
  • In-House
  • Rankings
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Legal Era TV
  • Events

Top Stories

HomeNewsGlobal InsightsAmerica
14 Oct 2020 1:22 PM GMT

US Supreme Court to hear case arising from a medical device patent challenge

By Legal Era
US Supreme Court to hear case arising from a medical device patent challenge

US Supreme Court to hear case arising from a medical device patent challengeThe United States (U.S.) Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether more than 100 technology disputes must be reheard because judges were unconstitutionally appointed to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tribunal in a case arising from a medical device patent challenge. According to the Supreme Court Justices,...

ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to Legal Era

Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion

Subscribe Now
AlreadyaSubscriber?SigninNow
View Plans


US Supreme Court to hear case arising from a medical device patent challenge




The United States (U.S.) Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether more than 100 technology disputes must be reheard because judges were unconstitutionally appointed to a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tribunal in a case arising from a medical device patent challenge.


According to the Supreme Court Justices, they would review a 2019 lower court decision that found a "constitutional defect" in the appointment of Patent Trial and Appeal Board judges. The decision pertains to an appeal by a Florida-based medical device company Arthrex in relation to a patent tribunal three-judge panel's decision that invalidated part of one of its patents that had been challenged by British-based rival Smith & Nephew PLC.


The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Tribunal was created in 2011 and is an administrative court which is run by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. History has it that it takes a second look at patents issued by the agency and often cancels them.


The tribunal has more than 200 judges who are government employees appointed by the U.S. Commerce Secretary rather than nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.


According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent litigation, these tribunal judges have considerable power and autonomy, which makes them kind of "principal officers" and such officers ought to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate under the U.S. Constitution.


This constitutional problem was solved when the Federal Circuit struck down part of a law dealing with how these tribunal judges can be removed from power.


The court's remedy allowed the board to continue operating. Still, the Federal Circuit has said that more than 100 technology disputes may need to be reheard before new panels of tribunal judges.

Next Story
TAGS:
  • US Supreme Court 
  • Patent 
  • Trademark 
  • U.S. Patent 
  • U.S. Trademark 
Similar Posts
Trending Now
Recommended Articles
  • News
  • From the Courts
  • Supreme Court (India)
  • High Court (India)
  • Global Insights
  • Deal Street
  • Hires & Moves
  • Refund & Cancellation Policy
  • Articles
  • Zoom In
  • Take On Board
  • In Focus
  • Law & Policy
  • IP & Tech Era
  • Viewpoint
  • Arbitration & Mediation
  • Tax
  • Student Corner
  • Interviews
  • Law Firms
  • E-Magazine
  • Legal Era TV
  • Membership
  • Reader's Feedback
  • Cartoons
  • Subscribe
  • Advertise
Follow Us
Subscribe Newsletter
  • 2023© All rights reserved Legal Era Media Group
  • Who We Are
  • Careers
  • Advertise with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
Powered by  Hocalwire
X
X
We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by continuing to use our site. To know more, see our Cookie Policy and Cookie Settings.Ok