Arthrex and Reexamination

Virnetx Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 2019-1671 (Fed. Cir., May 13, 2020).

Photo of John P. Isacson
John P. Isacson

Inter partes reexamination was a non-trial procedure that allowed third parties to participate in patent reexamination, and has now been replaced by inter partes and post-grant reviews. Inter partes reexaminations were conducted before a panel of examiners, and then subject to review by the PTAB in an appeal capacity. Here, Cisco and the Director of the USPTO sought rehearing of a decision that extended the Arthrex doctrine to inter partes reexaminations. Continue reading “Arthrex and Reexamination”

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On January 28, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential order that denied IPR petitioner Ciena’s motion to have a judgment vacated and remanded under Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed.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”