Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 13 Oct 2020

1. The Appointments Clause requires principal officers to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, but permits inferior officers to be appointed by department heads. U.S. Const. art. II, §2. This case concerns the appointment of the Patent Office's administrative patent judges ("APJs"). APJs issue decisions that are not reviewable by any superior executive officer, and they are removable from office only for cause. Nonetheless, APJs are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Federal Circuit held that, given their tenure protection and the absence of Executive Branch review, APJs are principal officers who cannot be appointed by the Secretary. The court purported to remedy the constitutional defect by severing APJs' tenure protections. The court deemed that change sufficient to render APJs inferior officers even though APJs still issue decisions that are not reviewable by any principal executive officer. The questions presented are:
2. Whether the court of appeals' severance remedy is consistent with congressional intent, where Congress has long considered tenure protections essential to secure the independence and impartiality of administrative judges.
3. Whether the court of appeals correctly held that the elimination of APJ tenure protections was sufficient to render APJs inferior officers, even though their decisions still are not reviewable by any principal executive officer.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case addressed the constitutionality of the appointment process for Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, who are responsible for adjudicating patent disputes. The Supreme Court held that APJs were unconstitutionally appointed under the Appointments Clause because they exercised significant authority without sufficient oversight by a principal officer. To remedy this, the Court invalidated part of their statutory protections from removal, allowing them to be removed more easily by a superior executive officer. This decision aimed to ensure proper accountability and supervision consistent with constitutional requirements while maintaining an efficient mechanism for resolving patent disputes.