Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

11 

Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

those  proceedings,  the  company  prevailed  in  its  efforts  to
cancel  patents  damaging  to  its  private  economic  interests
96%  of  the  time.    Ibid.    After  six  years  of  work,  the  APJ
decided he had done enough, resigned, and (yes) returned 
to the company.  Ibid.  Without a hint of irony, that com-
pany has filed an amicus brief in this case to inform us, as 
a  self-described  “frequent  user  of  the  IPR  process,”  about 
“the benefits of the system.”  Brief for Apple Inc. as Amicus 
Curiae 3.  Nor is that the only large technology company to
have its attorneys rotate in and out of the PTO to similar ef-
fect.  See Brief for B. E. Technology, LLC, as Amicus Curiae 
17 (discussing a Google attorney).  Oil States virtually assured 
results like these. 

That’s  not  the  end  of  the  constitutional  problems  flowing 
from Oil States either.  The Director has asserted “plenary au-
thority”  to  personally  select  which  APJs  will  decide  an  IPR 
proceeding.   Brief  for  United  States  5–6.    Thus,  any  APJs 
whose  rulings  displease  the  party  currently  in  power  could 
soon find themselves with little to do.  The PTAB has even 
“claimed the power through inter partes review to overrule fi-
nal judicial judgments affirming patent rights.”  Thryv, 590 
U. S., at ___ (GORSUCH, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 20).  And 
this menu of constitutional problems is surely just illustrative, 
not exhaustive. 

Today’s decision at least avoids the very worst of what Oil 
States could have become—investing the power to revoke in-
dividual’s  property  rights  in  some  unaccountable  fourth 
branch controlled by powerful companies seeking a competi-
tive  advantage.    Alignments  between  the  moneyed  and  the 
permanent  bureaucracy  to  advance  the  narrow  interests  of 
the elite are as old as bureaucracy itself.  Our decision today
represents a very small step back in the right direction
by ensuring that the people at least know who’s responsible 
for supervising this process—the elected President and his de-
signees.

Still, I harbor no illusions that today’s decision will resolve