The administrative judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board look like principal officers who should have been appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, a majority of the court ruled. But the court is getting around that problem by letting the PTO director conduct final review of each decision, rendering the APJs inferior officers.
June 21, 2021 at 11:18 AM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board has dodged another existential bullet.
The Supreme Court ruled in a fractured opinion Monday that the secretary of commerce’s appointments of the 221 administrative patent judges, or APJs, who hear challenges to patent validity were unconstitutional.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
John Roberts Jr., chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM)
