Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

APJs appear to be inferior officers—an understanding con-
sistent with their appointment in a manner permissible for
inferior but not principal officers. 

The  America  Invents  Act  insulates  APJs  from  supervi-
sion through two mechanisms.  The statute  provides that 
“each  . . .  inter  partes  review  shall  be  heard  by  at  least  3
members  of  the  [PTAB]”  and  that  “only  the  [PTAB]  may
grant rehearings.”  §6(c).  The upshot is that the Director 
cannot rehear and reverse a final decision issued by APJs. 
If the Director were to have the “authority to take control”
of a PTAB proceeding, APJs would properly function as in-
ferior officers.  Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 
U. S. 344, 354 (1931).

We conclude that a tailored approach is the appropriate
one: Section 6(c) cannot constitutionally be enforced to the
extent that its requirements prevent the Director from re-
viewing  final  decisions  rendered  by  APJs.    Because  Con-
gress has vested the Director with the “power and duties”
of the PTO, §3(a)(1), the Director has the authority to pro-
vide  for  a  means  of  reviewing  PTAB  decisions.    See  also 
§§3(a)(2)(A),  316(a)(4).  The  Director  accordingly  may  re-
view final PTAB decisions and, upon review, may issue de-
cisions himself on behalf of the Board.  Section 6(c) other-
wise  remains  operative  as  to  the  other  members  of  the 
PTAB. 

This does not result in an incomplete or unworkable stat-
utory scheme.  Cf. United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 
U. S. 454, 479 (1995).  To the contrary, review by the Direc-
tor would follow the almost-universal model of adjudication 
in the Executive Branch, see supra, at 15–16, and aligns the 
PTAB  with  the  other  adjudicative  body  in  the  PTO,  the
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, see §228 of the Trade-
mark Modernization Act of 2020, 134 Stat. 2209. 

The Government defends the different approach adopted 
by  the  Federal  Circuit.  The  Court  of  Appeals  held  unen-
forceable APJs’ protection against removal except “for such