Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 15

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

“power” in that regard is limited to carrying out the minis-
terial  duty  that  he  “shall  issue  and  publish  a  certificate”
canceling or confirming patent claims he had previously al-
lowed, as dictated by the APJs’ final decision.  §318(b); see
§§131, 153.  The chain of command runs not from the Direc-
tor to his subordinates, but from the APJs to the Director. 
The Government and Smith & Nephew assemble a cata-
log  of  steps  the  Director  might  take  to  affect  the  deci-
sionmaking  process  of  the  PTAB,  despite  his  lack  of  any 
statutory  authority  to  review  its  decisions.    See  Brief  for 
United States 30–32; Brief for Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. 
25–27.  The Government reminds us that it is the Director 
who  decides  whether  to  initiate  inter  partes  review. 
§314(a).  The Director can also designate the APJs who will 
decide  a  particular  case  and  can  pick  ones  predisposed  to 
his views.  §6(c).  And the Director, the Government asserts, 
can even vacate his institution decision if he catches wind 
of an unfavorable ruling on the way.  The “proceeding will
have no legal consequences” so long as the Director jumps 
in  before  the  Board  issues  its  final  decision.    Brief  for 
United States 31. 

If all else fails, the Government says, the Director can in-
tervene in the rehearing process to reverse Board decisions.
The  Government  acknowledges  that  only  the  PTAB  can 
grant rehearing under §6(c).  But the Director, according to
the Government, could manipulate the composition of the 
PTAB  panel  that  acts  on  the  rehearing  petition.    For  one 
thing, he could “stack” the original panel to rehear the case 
with additional APJs assumed to be more amenable to his 
preferences.  See Oil States, 584 U. S., at ___ (GORSUCH, J., 
dissenting) (slip op., at 3).  For another, he could assemble 
an entirely new panel consisting of himself and two other 
officers appointed by the Secretary—in practice, the Com-
missioner for Patents and the APJ presently designated as 
Chief Judge—to decide whether to overturn a decision and
reach  a  different  outcome  binding  on  future  panels.    See