No. 22-639

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al.

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2023-01-10
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (3) Experienced Counsel
Tags: acting-official agency-delegation director-review-authority federal-vacancies-reform-act inter-partes-review patent-and-trademark-office standing succession-plan
Key Terms:
Immigration Patent Trademark Copyright Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2023-05-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Commissioner for Patents' exercise of the Director's authority pursuant to an internal agency delegation violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (“FVRA”) establishes “the exclusive means for temporarily authorizing an acting official to perform the functions and duties” of a vacant presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed office. 5 U.S.C. §3347(a). The FVRA specifies which individuals are eligible to serve as acting officers and for how long. Id. §$3345, 3346. In this case, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) invoked its general delegation authority to adopt a succession plan that differs from the exclusive options set forth in the FVRA. The PTO’s Director is a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed officer. But the PTO’s Agency Organization Order 45-1 provides for the Commissioner for Patents to run the agency when the positions of Director and Deputy Director are both vacant. Pursuant to that order, Commissioner for Patents Andrew Hirshfeld, performing the functions and duties of the Director, denied review of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruling that invalidated Arthrex’s patent claims in an inter partes review. The question presented is: Whether the Commissioner for Patents’ exercise of the Director’s authority pursuant to an internal agency delegation violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. (i)

Docket Entries

2023-05-22
Petition DENIED.
2023-05-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/18/2023.
2023-04-28
2023-04-12
Brief of respondents Smith & Nephew, Inc. and ArthroCare Corp. in opposition filed.
2023-02-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including April 12, 2023, for all respondents.
2023-02-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 13, 2023 to April 12, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-02-09
2023-02-09
2023-02-09
2023-01-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 13, 2023, for all respondents.
2023-01-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 9, 2023 to March 13, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-01-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 9, 2023)
2022-10-28
Application (22A359) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until January 8, 2023.
2022-10-26
Application (22A359) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 9, 2022 to January 8, 2023, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Arthrex, Inc.
Jeffrey Alan LamkenMoloLamken LLP, Petitioner
Cato Institute
Clark M. Neily IIICato Institute, Amicus
Dr. Ron D. Katznelson
Maura Kathleen MoranCambridge Technology Law, LLC, Amicus
Fair Inventing Fund
Jonathan S. MasseyMassey & Gail LLP, Amicus
Federal Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Smith & Nephew, Inc. and ArthroCare Corp.
Charles T. SteenburgWolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Respondent