Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

22 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. 

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

cause  as  will  promote  the  efficiency  of  the  service,”  5 
U. S. C. §7513(a), which applies through 35 U. S. C. §3(c).
See 941 F. 3d, at 1337, 1340.  If the for-cause provision were
unenforceable,  the  Secretary  could  remove  APJs  at  will. 
See  Ex  parte  Hennen,  13  Pet.  230,  259–260  (1839).  The 
Government contends that APJs would then be inferior of-
ficers under Free Enterprise Fund.  But regardless whether
the Government is correct that at-will removal by the Sec-
retary would cure the constitutional problem, review by the
Director better reflects the structure of supervision within
the PTO and the nature of APJs’ duties, for the reasons we 
have explained.  See supra, at 12, 20–21. 

In sum, we hold that 35 U. S. C. §6(c) is unenforceable as 
applied to the Director insofar as it prevents the Director 
from reviewing the decisions of the PTAB on his own.  The 
Director may engage in such review and reach his own de-
cision.  When reviewing such a decision by the Director, a 
court must decide the case “conformably to the constitution, 
disregarding the law” placing restrictions on his review au-
thority  in  violation  of  Article  II.    Marbury  v.  Madison,  1 
Cranch 137, 178 (1803).  We add that this suit concerns only
the Director’s ability to supervise APJs in adjudicating pe-
titions for inter partes review.  We do not address the Di-
rector’s  supervision  over  other  types  of  adjudications  con-
ducted by the PTAB, such as the  examination process for 
which the Director has claimed unilateral authority to issue 
a patent.  See Reply Brief for Arthrex, Inc. 6. 

We  also  conclude  that  the  appropriate  remedy  is  a  re-
mand to the Acting  Director for him to decide whether to
rehear the petition filed by Smith & Nephew.  Although the 
APJs’ appointment by the Secretary allowed them to law-
fully adjudicate the petition in the first instance, see Frey-
tag, 501 U. S., at 881–882, they lacked the power under the
Constitution to finally resolve the matter within the Exec-
utive  Branch.  Under  these  circumstances,  a  limited  re-
mand to the Director provides an adequate opportunity for