Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-916_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

21 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

Int’l, Inc., 721 F.  3d 1330, 1340–1344 (CA Fed. 2013).  It’s 
no  wonder,  then,  that  district  courts  sometimes  throw  up 
their  hands  and  let  the  Board  take  over  whenever  inter 
partes review and patent litigation begin to overlap.  Why
bother with a trial if “the finality of any judgment rendered 
by  [a]  Court  will  be  dubious”?  Order  Granting  Stay  in 
Click-to-call  Technologies  LP  v.  Ingenio,  Inc.,  No.  12–cv– 
00465 (WD Tex.), Doc. No. 147, p. 4. 

It’s understandable, too, why the agency might think so 
much  is  up  for  grabs.  Not  only  did  this  Court  give  away
much of its Article III authority in Oil States on a mistaken 
assessment that patents were historically treated as public
franchises  rather  than  private  rights.    Some  would  have 
had the Court go even further.  Rather than looking to his-
tory to determine how patents were treated, as both the ma-
jority and dissent sought to do, these Members of the Court 
suggested  that  agencies  should  be  allowed  to  withdraw 
even  private  rights  if  “a  number  of  factors”—taken  to-
gether, of course—suggest it’s a good idea.  Commodity Fu-
tures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U. S. 833, 851 (1986); 
see  also  Oil  States,  584  U. S.,  at  ___  (BREYER, J.,  concur-
ring) (slip op., at 1).  These “factors” turn out to include such 
definitive and easily balanced considerations as the “nature
of  the  claim,”  the  “nature  of  the  non-Article  III  tribunal,” 
and the “nature and importance of the legislative purpose
served by the grant of adjudicatory authority to a tribunal 
with judges who lack Article III’s tenure and compensation
protections.”  Stern  v.  Marshall,  564  U. S.  462,  513  (2011) 
(BREYER, J., dissenting).  In other words, Article III prom-
ises that a person’s private rights may be taken only in pro-
ceedings  before  an  independent  judge,  unless  the  govern-
ment’s goals would be better served by a judge who isn’t so 
independent.

Thryv seeks to assure us that affected parties can still file
writs of mandamus in courts if the Patent Office gets really