Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

2 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  Art. II, §1, cl. 1; §3. 
The Appointments Clause provides that he may be assisted
in carrying out that responsibility by officers nominated by 
him and confirmed by the Senate, as well as by other offic-
ers not appointed in that manner but whose work, we have 
held, must be directed and supervised by an officer who has 
been.  §2, cl. 2.  The question presented is whether the au-
thority of the Board to issue decisions on behalf of the Ex-
ecutive Branch is consistent with these constitutional pro-
visions. 

I 
A 
The creation of a workable patent system was a congres-
sional  priority  from  the  start.    The  First  Congress  estab-
lished the Patent Board—consisting impressively of Secre-
tary  of  State  Thomas  Jefferson,  Secretary  of  War  Henry
Knox,  and  Attorney  General  Edmund  Randolph—to  issue
patents for inventions they deemed “sufficiently useful and 
important.”  §1, 1 Stat. 109–110.  Jefferson, a renowned in-
ventor in his own right, “was charged with most of the re-
sponsibility”  to  administer  the  new  patent  system.    Fed-
erico,  Operation  of  the  Patent  Act  of  1790,  18  J.  Pat.  Off.
Soc. 237, 238–239 (1936).  The Patent Board was a short-
lived experiment because its members had much else to do. 
Jefferson  candidly  admitted  that  he  had  “been  obliged  to
give undue & uninformed opinions on rights often valuable” 
without the “great deal of time” necessary to “understand & 
do justice by” patent applicants.  Letter from T. Jefferson to 
H. Williamson (Apr. 1, 1792), in 6 Works of Thomas Jeffer-
son 459 (P. Ford ed. 1904). 

In 1793, Congress shifted to a registration system admin-
istered by the Secretary of State.  See 1 Stat. 319–321.  The 
Secretary no longer reviewed the substance of patent appli-
cations  but  instead  issued  patents  through  a  routine  pro-
cess  “as  a  ministerial  officer.”    Grant  v.  Raymond,  6  Pet.