High Court Says Scores of Patent Judges Were Improperly Appointed

June 22, 2021 by Dan McCue
High Court Says Scores of Patent Judges Were Improperly Appointed
The U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo by Dan McCue)

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Congress erred when it set up a board to oversee patent disputes by failing to make the judges properly accountable to the president.

As a result, it said, more than 200 administrative judges who preside over patent disputes had been appointed in violation of the Constitution.

In resolving the longrunning case, Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., writing on behalf of the five-justice majority, said the judges at the heart simply had not been properly appointed.

“The unreviewable executive power exercised is incompatible with their status as inferior officers,” he wrote.

However, though the number of judges involved seems sweeping, the justices offered a narrow solution.

Rather than toss the current system of appointing patent judges, the high court said the current judges will hold onto their seats — al beit with additional supervision — and that the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will have greater power to review the judges’ decisions.

The director is nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate, “fixing” the flaw in how Congress set up a board to oversee patent disputes.

The underlying case was filed by a medical technology company, Arthrex, which had patented a surgical device for reattachig soft tissue to bone.

Arthrex sued a British company, Smith & Nephew, for patent infringement in 2015. The companies ultimately settled, but Smith & Nephew continued to challenge Arthrex’s patent.

A panel of three administrative judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board sided with Smith & Nephew and found Arthrex’s claims unpatentable.

But Arthrex appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, arguing that the patent judges’ decision should be thrown out because they had not been properly appointed.

The question for the court had to do with whether Congress violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause in the way it set up the board. The board’s judges are not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate but instead appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.

The appeals court agreed, ruling that the judges were “principal officers” under the Constitution, meaning that they had to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The appeals court’s solution to the constitutional problem was to strike down a part of the law that protected the patent judges from being fired without cause.

This “solution” effectively demoted them from “principal officers,” the appeals court said.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, the case will be sent back and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s acting director can decide whether to rehear the petition filed by Smith & Nephew.

A+
a-
  • Chief Justice John Roberts
  • patents
  • patents and trademarks
  • Supreme Court
  • In The News

    Health

    Voting

    Supreme Court

    July 3, 2025
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court to Decide Liability of Transit Agencies After Accidents

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to determine whether New Jersey Transit is immune from liability as a state... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to determine whether New Jersey Transit is immune from liability as a state agency. The public transit agency was sued by two men who were hit and injured by commuter buses in separate accidents. In one case of a... Read More

    July 3, 2025
    by Dan McCue
    Justices to Take Up Two Transgender Athlete Cases Next Term

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Thursday that it will hear two cases challenging the constitutionality of state laws that... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Thursday that it will hear two cases challenging the constitutionality of state laws that bar transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports teams. The two cases come to the court from Idaho and West Virginia. Just last month, a sharply... Read More

    July 1, 2025
    by Dan McCue
    Supreme Court to Review $1B Cox Digital Copyright Case

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide a copyright dispute between Cox Communications and major music labels... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide a copyright dispute between Cox Communications and major music labels that could set the stage for a landmark decision on copyright infringement liability in the digital era. The case is Cox Communications, Inc., et al. v.... Read More

    July 1, 2025
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court Agrees to Rehear Case Seeking End to Campaign Finance Limits

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a lawsuit during its next term that seeks to end some... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a lawsuit during its next term that seeks to end some restrictions on campaign spending by political parties. The limits were imposed during the Nixon administration to prevent political parties from coordinating efforts with candidates on how... Read More

    Supreme Court Throws Out Appellate Rulings in Favor of Transgender People in Four States

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday threw out appellate rulings in favor of transgender people in four states following the... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday threw out appellate rulings in favor of transgender people in four states following the justices' recent decision upholding a Tennessee ban on certain medical treatment for transgender youths. But the justices took no action in cases from Arizona, Idaho and West Virginia... Read More

    June 27, 2025
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court Curbs Ability of District Courts to Block Trump Policies

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday limited the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions that block controversial... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday limited the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions that block controversial executive orders from the president. The immediate issue was an executive order from President Donald Trump that ended birthright citizenship, or the right to be an... Read More

    News From The Well
    scroll top