{"id":11311,"date":"2020-12-01T19:04:45","date_gmt":"2020-12-02T01:04:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=11311"},"modified":"2020-12-01T19:04:45","modified_gmt":"2020-12-02T01:04:45","slug":"before-arthrex","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=11311","title":{"rendered":"Before Arthrex"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Patently-O has the initial briefs for the <em>U.S. v. Arthrex <\/em>appeal at the Supreme Court [<a href=\"https:\/\/patentlyo.com\/patent\/2020\/12\/briefing-begins-arthrex.html\">Link<\/a>].  As I was reading the government&#8217;s brief and its assertions of how the Director of the Patent Office can purportedly control PTAB judges [<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/19\/19-1434\/161888\/20201125150643425_19-1434tsUnitedStates.pdf\">Link<\/a>], I was reminded of the DOJ\/PTO&#8217;s <strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/12\/Knowles.pdf\">brief<\/a><\/strong> before the Federal Circuit back in July of 2017 in <em>Knowles Electronics LLC v. Iancu<\/em>, 886 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(then-captioned <em>Knowles Electronics LLC v. Matal<\/em>).  In that disinterested brief before the court, the government explained how the Director is the representative of the agency, i.e., the USPTO; but, the PTAB is the USPTO&#8217;s adjudicator.  The Director can ask the PTAB to reconsider a decision.  But, when the PTAB makes a decision, it is in reality an order of the agency itself.  If the Director disagrees with a PTAB decision, he\/she is free to challenge that decision at the Federal Circuit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>Indeed,\u00a0<em>Ingalls\u00a0<\/em>directly addresses the Director\u2019s position in these appeals, not as a representative of the Board but as a representative of the agency as a whole. When the Board\u2014the USPTO\u2019s adjudicator\u2014makes a decision, the \u201corder of the agency\u2019s designated adjudicator is in reality an order of the agency itself.\u201d 519 U.S. at 268. The agency \u201cmay then be free to designate its enforcer\/litigator as its voice before the courts of appeals.\u201d\u00a0<em>Id.\u00a0<\/em>The agency\u2019s litigator\u2014in this case the USPTO Solicitor\u2014while appearing on the side of the appellee, \u201cis free to argue on behalf of the petitioner and to challenge the decision of the Board.\u201d\u00a0<em>Id.\u00a0<\/em>at 270. Thus, if the Director (or Solicitor) disagrees with the Board\u2019s decision, he need not argue in support of affirmance. This prevents \u201ca \u2018lopsided\u2019 scheme whereby the Director can appear only in defense of the [Board\u2019s] decisions.\u201d\u00a0<em>Id.\u00a0<\/em>(citations omitted).3\u00a0<\/p><p>Footnote 3.  Practically speaking, the Solicitor would not often argue in support of reversal of a Board decision because the agency would likely handle those cases administratively. For example, the Director can ask the Board to reconsider a decision. If the decision has already been appealed and the Director then determines that it is somehow defective, the Solicitor can seek a remand for the Board to reconsider.<em>See, e.g.<\/em>,\u00a0<em>In re Bursey<\/em>, No. 2016-2675 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2017) (nonprecedential) (remanding appeal upon Solicitor\u2019s request to allow Board to reconsider);\u00a0<em>In re DiStefano<\/em>, 562 Fed. App\u2019x 984 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2014);\u00a0<em>In re Shield<\/em>, No. 2013-1562 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2014);\u00a0<em>In re Motorola Mobility LLC<\/em>, No. 2012-1470 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 2013).<\/p><cite>DOJ\/USPTO&#8217;s Supplemental Brief filed July 31, 2017 in <em>Knowles Electronics LLC v. Iancu<\/em>, 886 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(then-captioned <em>Knowles Electronics LLC v. Matal<\/em>).<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p>This quote and the accompanying footnote 3 seem to suggest that it is really the Federal Circuit that controls the PTAB.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Patently-O has the initial briefs for the U.S. v. Arthrex appeal at the Supreme Court [Link]. As I was reading the government&#8217;s brief and its assertions of how the Director of the Patent Office can purportedly control PTAB judges [Link], I was reminded of the DOJ\/PTO&#8217;s brief before the Federal Circuit back in July of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11311"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=11311"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11311\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11314,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11311\/revisions\/11314"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11311"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11311"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11311"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}