Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 49.0

2 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

I 

The Executive Branch is large, and the hierarchical path 
from President to administrative patent judge is long.  At 
the top sits the President, in whom the executive power is
vested.  U. S. Const., Art. II, §1.  Below him is the Secretary
of Commerce, who oversees the Department of Commerce
and its work force of about 46,000.  15 U. S. C. §§1501, 1513.
Within  that  Department  is  the  United  States  Patent  and
Trademark Office led by a Director.  35 U. S. C. §§1, 2(a), 
3(a) (also known as the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property).  In the Patent and Trademark Office 
is  the  Patent  Trial  and  Appeal  Board.  §6(a).   Serving  on
this Board are administrative patent judges.  Ibid. 

There are few statutory prerequisites to becoming an ad-
ministrative patent judge.  One must be a “perso[n] of com-
petent  legal  knowledge  and  scientific  ability”  and  be  “ap-
pointed by the Secretary.”  Ibid.  The job description too is
relatively straightforward: sit on the Board along with the
Director,  the  Deputy  Director,  the  Commissioner  for  Pa-
tents, the Commissioner for Trademarks, and other admin-
istrative patent judges.  Ibid. 

The Board adjudicates both appellate and trial disputes.
See §6(b).  It may directly review certain decisions made by
patent examiners, and it may hold its own proceedings to
determine the patentability of patent claims.  As relevant 
here, it conducts inter partes review, which “offers a second
look at an earlier administrative grant of a patent.”  Cuozzo 
Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U. S. 261, 279 (2016).
Inter  partes  review—and  all  other  types  of  Board  hear-
ings—must be “heard by at least 3 members” of the Board.
§6(c).

In this suit, Smith & Nephew, Inc., and Arthrocare Corp.
(collectively, Smith & Nephew) filed a petition challenging 
some of Arthrex, Inc.’s patent claims.  After deciding that 
there  was  a  reasonable  likelihood  that  Smith  &  Nephew 
would prevail, the Director instituted review.  §314(a).  A