Smith & Nephew Inc. v. Arthrex Inc.

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 13 Oct 2020

This Court has consistently held that first-line administrative adjudicators are Officers of the United States under the Appointments Clause. See Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2053 (2018); Freytag v. Comm'r, 501 U.S. 868, 881-82 (1991). With equal consistency, this Court has held that such adjudicators are "inferior" Officers, whose appointments may be vested in a Head of Department, rather than "principal" Officers, who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 666 (1997). In this case, however, the Federal Circuit ruled that administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board-whose functions are analogous to the adjudicators in Edmond, Freytag, and Lucia-are "principal" Officers whose statutory mode of appointment is unconstitutional. The question presented by this petition is: Whether administrative patent judges are "principal" or "inferior" Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the appointment process for Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The case arose when Arthrex, Inc., challenged a decision by APJs that invalidated one of its patents, arguing that their appointments violated the Appointments Clause because they were not appointed by the President with Senate confirmation. The Court held that APJs are principal officers who must be appointed in this manner; however, to remedy this constitutional defect without disrupting ongoing patent proceedings, it severed certain statutory restrictions on removing APJs from office. This effectively made them inferior officers subject to greater oversight and control by executive branch officials.