It’s clear that several major factors — the full effect of which we may not fully grasp until sometime in the future— are drastically impacting PTAB practice.

The Arthrex decision is perhaps the most iconoclastic of these developments, as it questioned the constitutionality of APJ appointments, thus leaving unresolved questions which may affect pending and future IPRs as well as previous IPR decisions. Arthrex gives unprecedented discretionary authority to the PTO Director.

There are also ongoing questions about discretionary denials and the future direction of IPRs. All proving that PTAB Practice is still a work in progress, and its related jurisprudence is still evolving.

At ACI’s PTAB Briefing top experts convene for in-depth discussions and analysis of these most significant developments impacting PTAB practice as well as future forecasts.


PTAB Practitioners, including:

  • In-house patent and IP counsel from a variety of industries and areas, including:
    • Electronics
    • Computers and Software
    • Technology
    • Medical Devices
    • Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology
    • Chemical


  • Private practice attorneys in the fields of:
    • Intellectual Property/Patents Litigation
    • USPTO Practice