Another Arthrex Limit

Caterpillar Paving Products Inc. v. Wirtgen America, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1261 (Fed Cir., May 6, 2020).

Photo of John P. Isacson
John P. Isacson

On May 5, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential order holding that IPR petitioners cannot seek the Arthrex do-over. One day later, the Federal Circuit placed another limitation on the applicability of the Arthrex doctrine. Continue reading “Another Arthrex Limit”

Arthrex Is Not for Everyone

Ciena Corp. v. Oyster Optics, LLC, Appeal No. 2019-2117 (Fed. Cir., May 5, 2020).

Photo of John P. Isacson
John P. Isacson

On January 28, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential order that denied IPR petitioner Ciena’s motion to have a judgment vacated and remanded under Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The order was made precedential on May 5, 2020. Continue reading “Arthrex Is Not for Everyone”

IPR Institution Is Not Permanent, and Is Nonappealable – Part 2

Photo of John P. Isacson
John P. Isacson

Biodelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir., January 13, 2020)

On August 29, 2019, we reported on the Biodelivery decision, where the PTAB received on remand a partially-instituted IPR decision with directions to fully institute the IPR on all petitioned grounds. Instead of fully instituting the IPR, the PTAB declined to institute the IPR at all. Petitioner appealed, and the Federal Circuit dismissed. Continue reading “IPR Institution Is Not Permanent, and Is Nonappealable – Part 2”