PTAB Constitutionality

Subscribe to PTAB Constitutionality via RSS
Federal Circuit Gives Short Shrift to Bias Arguments

A number of due process theories have been floated over the past few months as the “next big thing” in potential constitutional challenges to the PTAB.  Some have been arguing that PTAB judges are financially incentivized to institute  Others have pointed out that judges that institute AIA trials are biased in favor of cancelling claims given it is the very same judges on the back-end.

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit shot down both theories.
Continue Reading Due Process Argument Against PTAB Funding Structure Fails

Cert Petitions Pursue Takings Clause Argument

Last week, Arthrex filed a petition for certiorari challenging the holding of the Federal Circuit that its Appointments Clause challenge was forfeited. (a companion case to the one that has received all of the notoriety).  In its first petition for certiorari, Arthrex also pursues a different constitutional issue based on the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, like other recent filers.

I expect this argument to soon be added to the list of failed constitutional challenges to the PTAB.Continue Reading Takings Clause Challenge to PTAB Trials?

Unanimous Support for Legislative Fix

Today, the House Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing entitled “The Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Appointments Clause: Implications of Recent Court Decisions.” The hearing explored whether or not the current Federal Circuit solution was effective in curing the Appointments Clause defect, while there was some debate over whether the “fix” would hold, all of today’s witnesses were unanimous in that Congress, could, and should, fix the issue in the short term.
Continue Reading House Judiciary Told Legislative Fix to Arthrex Defect is Necessary

Orders Stave Off Further Remands….For Now

During last week’s argument in Polaris, appellant argued that the Court’s fix to the PTAB’s Appointments Clause problem was insufficient. According to appellant, “reviewability” is the touchstone of recent Appointments Clause precedent, and that as the proposed fix did not address the lack of reviewability over APJ decisions (because the Federal Circuit could not), it was up to Congress to fix.  During that same hearing, the Court contemplated additional briefing on this topic, which it recently solicited from the parties.

In the meantime, learning from its mistake in its recent Uniloc remand, the Federal Circuit is now allowing time for the government to intervene in parties seeking remand after Arthrex (here) and (here).
Continue Reading Lawmakers Consider Fix as CAFC Deals With PTAB Appointments Clause Fallout

Legislative Intrusion on Article III Courts Considered in Patchek

The Supreme Court provided its most up-to-date guidance on the boundaries of Article III jurisdiction relative to acts of Congress in Patchak v. Zinke, No. 16-498. This decision, issued on February 27th, previews the varying perspectives that will drive the ultimate conclusion in Oil States.

Stating the holding of the Patchak plurality (6-3) most succinctly, and perhaps foreshadowing Oil States, Justice Ginsburg explained: “What Congress grants, it may retract.”Continue Reading Oil States Result Previewed by SCOTUS?