Plain-English summary
Court rules certain Patent Office judges held too much power without presidential appointment
In United States v. Arthrex (2021), the Court held that Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board exercised significant, unreviewable executive power that is inconsistent with their being mere 'inferior officers' appointed by the Commerce Secretary. The decision vacated the Federal Circuit judgment and remanded, and the Court remedied the constitutional problem by making Board decisions reviewable by the Director of the Patent Office.
Why this matters
The decision enforces the Appointments Clause and clarifies the boundary between independent adjudicators and executive officers. It affects how administrative agencies structure internal review and who can constitutionally make binding decisions that affect private parties' property rights — here, patent rights worth potentially billions. The ruling increases presidential and agency head oversight over important agency adjudications.
Who may feel it
- Patent owners and challengers who use inter partes review (IPR) at the PTO
- Companies and inventors whose patents have been or may be canceled by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
- The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and its leadership
- Other federal agencies that use multi-member adjudicators or administrative judges