Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 5

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 
corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 19–1434, 19–1452 and 19–1458 
_________________ 

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER 
v. 
ARTHREX, INC., ET AL. 

19–1434 

19–1452 

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. 
ARTHREX, INC., ET AL. 

19–1458 

ARTHREX, INC., PETITIONER 
v. 
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., ET AL. 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

[June 21, 2021]

 CHIEF  JUSTICE  ROBERTS  delivered  the  opinion  of  the 

Court with respect to Parts I and II. 

The validity of a patent previously issued by the Patent 
and Trademark Office can be challenged before the Patent 
Trial  and  Appeal  Board,  an  executive  tribunal  within  the 
PTO.  The Board, composed largely of Administrative Pa-
tent Judges appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, has 
the final word within the Executive Branch on the validity 
of  a  challenged  patent.  Billions  of  dollars  can  turn  on  a 
Board decision. 

Under the Constitution, “[t]he executive Power” is vested
in the President, who has the responsibility to “take Care