Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 18

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

15 

Opinion of the Court 

decide,”  “delegate  that  power  to  executive  officers,”  or 
“commit it to judicial tribunals.”  Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 
279  U. S.,  at  451.    That  Congress  chose  the  courts  in  the 
past does not foreclose its choice of the PTO today. 

D 
  Finally,  Oil  States  argues  that  inter  partes  review  vio-
lates Article III because it shares “every salient character-
istic  associated  with  the  exercise  of  the  judicial  power.”  
Brief  for  Petitioner  20.    Oil  States  highlights  various 
procedures  used  in  inter  partes  review:  motion  practice 
before  the  Board;  discovery,  depositions,  and  cross-
examination  of  witnesses;  introduction  of  evidence  and 
objections based on the Federal Rules of Evidence; and an 
adversarial  hearing  before  the  Board.    See  35  U. S. C. 
§316(a); 77 Fed. Reg. 48758, 48761–48763 (2012).  Similarly, 
Oil  States  cites  PTO  regulations  that  use  terms  typically 
associated  with  courts—calling  the  hearing  a  “trial,”  id., 
at 48758; the Board members “judges,” id.,  at 48763; and 
the  Board’s  final  decision  a  “judgment,”  id.,  at  48761, 
48766–48767. 
  But  this  Court  has  never  adopted  a  “looks  like”  test  to 
determine  if  an  adjudication  has  improperly  occurred 
outside  of  an  Article  III  court.    The  fact  that  an  agency 
uses court-like procedures does not necessarily mean it is 
exercising  the  judicial  power.    See  Freytag,  501  U. S.,  at 
910  (opinion  of  Scalia,  J.).    This  Court  has  rejected  the 
notion  that  a  tribunal  exercises  Article  III  judicial  power 
simply because it is “called a court and its decisions called 
judgments.”  Williams v. United States, 289 U. S. 553, 563 
(1933).  Nor does the fact that an administrative adjudica-
tion  is  final  and  binding  on  an  individual  who  acquiesces 
in the result necessarily make it an exercise of the judicial 
power.    See,  e.g.,  Murray’s  Lessee,  18  How.,  at  280–281 
(permitting  the  Treasury  Department  to  conduct  “final 
and  binding”  audits  outside  of  an  Article  III  court).    Al-