Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

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

1 

Opinion of GORSUCH, J. 

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]

 JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring in part and dissenting in 

part. 

For  most  of  this  Nation’s  history,  an  issued  patent  was
considered a vested property right that could be taken from
an individual only through a lawful process before a court. 
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, 
LLC, 584 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (GORSUCH, J., dissent-
ing) (slip op., at 8–10).  I continue to think this Court’s re-
cent  decision  in  Oil  States—upsetting  this  traditional  un-
derstanding and allowing officials in the Executive Branch
to “cancel” already-issued patents—departed from the Con-
stitution’s separation of powers.  But it would be an even 
greater  departure  to  permit  those  officials  to  withdraw  a 
vested property right while accountable to no one within the 
Executive Branch.  Accordingly, I join Parts I and II of the