Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 56

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

9 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

The Director decides in the first instance whether to insti-
tute, refuse to institute, or de-institute particular reviews,
a  decision  that  is  “final  and  nonappealable.”    35  U. S. C. 
§314(d); see also §314(a).  If the Director institutes review, 
he then may select which administrative patent judges will 
hear the challenge.  §6(c).  Alternatively, he can avoid as-
signing  any  administrative  patent  judge  to  a  specific  dis-
pute  and  instead  designate  himself,  his  Deputy  Director, 
and the Commissioner of Patents.  In addition, the Director 
decides which of the thousands of decisions issued each year 
bind other panels as precedent.  SOP2, at 8.  No statute bars 
the Director from taking an active role to ensure the Board’s 
decisions conform to his policy direction.

But, that is not all.  If the administrative patent judges
“(somehow) reach a result he does not like, the Director can
add  more  members  to  the  panel—including  himself—and 
order the case reheard.”  Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. 
Greene’s  Energy  Group,  LLC,  584  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2018) 
(GORSUCH, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 3).  There is a formal-
ized process for this type of review.  The Director may uni-
laterally convene a special panel—the Precedential Opinion 
Panel—to  review  a  decision  in  a  case  and  determine 
whether to order rehearing sua sponte.  SOP2, at 5.  (Any
party to a proceeding or any Board member can also recom-
mend rehearing by the Precedential Opinion Panel.  Ibid.)
The  default  members  of  the  panel  are  the  Director,  the 
Commissioner  for  Patents,  and  the  Chief  Administrative 
Patent Judge.  Id., at 4.  So even if all administrative patent 
judges decide to defy the Director’s authority and go their
respective ways, the Director and the Commissioner for Pa-
tents can still put a stop to it.  And, if the Commissioner for 
Patents  is  running  amuck,  the  Director  may  expand  the 
size  of  the  panel  or  may  replace  the  Commissioner  with 
someone else, including his Deputy Director.  Ibid.  Further, 
this panel is not limited to reviewing whether there is “com-
petent evidence” as the CAAF was.  It can correct anything