Term: 2020
Docket: 19-1434
United States v. Arthrex Inc.
- Pro
19-1434 UNITED STATES V. ARTHREX, INC. DECISION BELOW: 941 F.3d 1320 THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN No. 19-1434 IS GRANTED AS TO FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASE No. 2018-2140 CONSOLIDATED WITH 19-1952 AND 19-1958 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. LIMITED TO QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 AS SET FORTH IN THE JULY 22, 2020 MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES. 1. Whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are principal officers who must be appointed by the President with the Senate's advice and consent, or "inferior Officers" whose appointment Congress has permissibly vested in a department head. 2. Whether, if administrative patent judges are principal officers, the court of appeals properly cured any Appointments Clause defect in the current statutory scheme prospectively by severing the application of 5 U.S.C. 7513(a) to those judges. CERT. GRANTED 10/13/2020 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II,§ 2, Cl. 2, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are principal officers who must be appointed by the President with the Senate's advice and consent, or "inferior Officers" whose appointment Congress has permissibly vested in a department head. 2. Whether the court of appeals erred by adjudicating an Appointments Clause challenge brought by a litigant that had not presented the challenge to the agency. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2018-2140
The Supreme Court case United States v. Arthrex Inc., 2020, centered around the constitutionality of appointments to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that reviews patent disputes. The issue arose when Arthrex Inc., a medical device company, argued that its patent was wrongly invalidated by PTAB because its judges were unconstitutionally appointed as they have significant authority but are not confirmed by Senate - violating Appointments Clause of Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arthrex initially, finding these appointments unconstitutional; however, it also provided a remedy for this constitutional violation: giving more oversight power to director of USPTO over PTAB decisions which would make them "inferior officers" rather than principal ones requiring Senate confirmation.
In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Arthrex Inc., Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, argued that the majority's decision to allow Congress to give unreviewable power over public rights disputes to administrative judges was a departure from historical practice and constitutional requirements. They contended that this ruling undermined both separation of powers principles and individual liberties. The dissenters also disagreed with the majority's remedy of eliminating tenure protections for Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judges as they believed it did not address the fundamental issue: PTAB judges exercising executive power without being appointed by or accountable to anyone in the Executive Branch. Instead, they suggested returning patent disputes back into Article III courts where such matters were traditionally resolved.
