- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Constitutional Law
- Date Filed: June 21, 2021
- Case #: 19–1434
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Majority: C.J. Roberts, J. Alito, J. Kavanaugh, J. Barrett; Concurring: J. Gorsuch; Concurring: J. Breyer joined by J. Sotomayor and J. Kagan;Dissenting: J. Thomas
- Full Text Opinion
Respondent, Arthrex, Inc., owned a patent that was subject to review by a panel of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs). The APJ determined that Petitioner’s claims were unpatentable. On appeal, Respondent argued that the appointment of APJs violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because APJs are “principal officers” who must be appointed by the president, not by the Secretary of the Commerce as outlined by 35 35 U.S.C. § 6(a). The Federal Circuit court agreed, severing the APJ removal segment of the Patent Act to bypass the constitutional dilemma by rendering APJs “inferior officers.”
The United States, Petitioner, appealed to the Supreme Court. On review, the Court held that the authority held by APJs is consistent with a “principal officer” and incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce. Thus, APJ appointment by the Secretary is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court held that the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trade Office must serve as the ultimate authority to review final decisions, not APJs.
Vacated and remanded.