News & Publications
Find our latest news and analysis here. From the daily Newsstand to the Quarterly Journal, we cover the full breadth of intellectual property law.
Written August 29, 2019
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 21, 2019, held that a “minor variation in wording” between Smith & Nephew, Inc.’s IPR petition and the PTAB’s decision doesn’t justify throwing out the ruling. Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 2018-1584, 8/21/19.
Smith & Nephew Inc. challenged claims of Arthrex’s US Patent No. 8,821,541, covering a surgical suture anchor used to reattach soft tissue to bone. Arthrex argued that the PTAB violated their procedural rights when it described a prior art method for casting the device as “preferred," instead of using the petition’s characterizations.
However, the Federal Circuit said that the PTAB “relied on the same references, the same disclosures, and the same obviousness theories advanced by the petition,” and affirmed the ruling.
Smith & Nephew Inc. challenged claims of Arthrex’s US Patent No. 8,821,541, covering a surgical suture anchor used to reattach soft tissue to bone. Arthrex argued that the PTAB violated their procedural rights when it described a prior art method for casting the device as “preferred," instead of using the petition’s characterizations.
However, the Federal Circuit said that the PTAB “relied on the same references, the same disclosures, and the same obviousness theories advanced by the petition,” and affirmed the ruling.
Broadcast Opportunities
Looking for opportunities to get published? Submit your work to the AIPLA Quarterly Journal or AIPLA Innovate Magazine.
Exhibitor and Sponsorship Opportunities
Highlight your brand at a premier intellectual property law event, webinar, podcast, or in one of our publications.
For rates, availability, or additional details, click here or contact:
Meghan Donohoe
COO
American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
T| +1.703.415.1343
E| mdonohoe@aipla.org