BROADCASTS.com

b'In the sixth episode of S&C\\u2019s\\xa0Supreme Court Business Review\\xa0series, hosts Judd Littleton and Julia Malkina are joined by Dustin Guzior, co-head of S&C\\u2019s Intellectual Property & Technology Litigation practice, to discuss three intellectual property cases that the Supreme Court decided last Term and key takeaways for businesses.\\nIn United States v. Arthrex, the Supreme Court sidestepped an issue that had the potential to affect significantly patent litigation: \\xa0whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board\\u2019s administrative patent judges must be appointed by the President with approval of the Senate.\\xa0 The Court instead held that PTAB\\u2019s structure violated the Appointment Clause of the Constitution because the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office did not have sufficient power to review the PTAB\\u2019s decisions. \\xa0In Minerva Surgical v. Hologic, the Court narrowed the scope of \\u201cassignor estoppel,\\u201d which precludes the assignor of a patent from later challenging the patent\\u2019s validity, by holding that assignor estoppel does not extend to circumstances that did not exist at the time of the assignment. Lastly, in Google v. Oracle, the Court held that Google\\u2019s copying of some of Oracle\\u2019s application program interface code for Java was fair use. \\xa0Because the Court assumed without deciding that such code can be copyrighted in the first place, it left that important question for another day.'