Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 10 NOVEMBER 2017

Spotlight On Upcoming Oral Arguments – November 2017

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will consider whether it has jurisdiction to review a PTAB decision to terminate an IPR and enter an adverse judgment against the patent owner.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Monday, November 6, 2017

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 17-1239, Courtroom 402

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will consider whether it has jurisdiction to review a PTAB decision to terminate an IPR and enter an adverse judgment against the patent owner.  Arthrex argues that the Court has jurisdiction because the PTAB's decision to enter an adverse judgment and terminate the IPR constituted a "decision" that is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4).  Alternatively, Arthrex argues that the PTAB's decision constitutes a "final agency action" that is reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.  Smith & Nephew argues that the APA does not permit judicial review of final agency actions when another statute bars judicial review.  Thus, Smith & Nephew argues that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Arthrex's appeal because its jurisdiction is limited to review of final written decisions under the AIA. 

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from