Insights

New York – January 27, 2022: Crowell & Moring secured a significant victory - a preliminary injunction against patent infringement through trial - on behalf of Lonza Walkersville, Inc., against Adva Biotechnology Ltd. in a case involving point-of-care cell-therapy technology.

Washington, D.C. – January 9, 2017: Crowell & Moring LLP is pleased to announce that it has elected six lawyers to the firm's partnership, effective January 1, 2017. The firm has also promoted 19 associates to the position of counsel. The new partners have been promoted from within the ranks of the firm's Washington, D.C., New York, Orange County, and Los Angeles offices and underscore the firm's commitment to its Antitrust, Commercial Litigation, Environment & Natural Resources, Government Contracts, Health Care, International Trade, and White Collar & Regulatory Enforcement practices.

On January 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published Guidelines for assessing enablement after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al.  The Guidelines inform Examiners and the public on the Office’s implementation of the Amgen opinion. In sum, the Guidelines maintain the status quo.   

Just over a week after the Supreme Court’s decision in Arthrex, the USPTO has issued preliminary guidance on how the Office plans to implement the Director-review process required by the Court’s decision. The Office intends to treat the Director reviews much like the current request for rehearing process. Namely, a request for the Director’s review must satisfy the timing requirements of a request for rehearing (37 C.F.R. 42.71(d)), and a timely request for Director review will reset the time for appeal or civil action pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 90.3(b). But unlike requests for rehearing by the panel of administrative patent judges, which must point out an argument or issue that the Board “misapprehended or overlooked,” the Director can review any issue, whether one of fact or law. The Director also has de novo review authority, so need not give deference to the panel’s decisions under review. Further, the Director can initiate a review sua sponte. When sua sponte review is initiated, the parties to the proceeding will be given notice and may be given an opportunity for briefing.

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the closely watched Arthrex case—where the constitutionality of the Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) at the USPTO was at issue.  The Court did not go as far as holding the entire IPR system unconstitutional, which Arthrex had sought, but a divided Court did find constitutional problems with the USPTO’s handling of PTAB decisions.  In particular, the Court agreed with the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the appointment of APJs by the Secretary of Commerce was unconstitutional, but found the Federal Circuit’s remedy to the constitutional violation unsuitable.