Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2020 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. ET AL. 

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

No. 19–1434.  Argued March 1, 2021—Decided June 21, 2021* 

The question in these cases is whether the authority of Administrative 
Patent  Judges  (APJs)  to  issue  decisions  on  behalf  of  the  Executive 
Branch  is  consistent  with  the  Appointments  Clause  of  the  Constitu-
tion.  APJs conduct adversarial proceedings for challenging the valid-
ity  of  an  existing  patent  before  the  Patent  Trial  and  Appeal  Board 
(PTAB).  During such proceedings, the PTAB sits in panels of at least 
three of its members, who are predominantly APJs.  35 U. S. C. §§6(a), 
(c).  The Secretary of Commerce appoints all members of the PTAB—
including 200-plus APJs—except for the Director, who is nominated by 
the President and confirmed by the Senate.  §§3(b)(1), (b)(2)(A), 6(a).  
After Smith & Nephew, Inc., and ArthroCare Corp. (collectively, Smith 
& Nephew) petitioned for inter partes review of a patent secured by 
Arthrex, Inc., three APJs concluded that the patent was invalid.  On 
appeal to the Federal Circuit, Arthrex claimed that the structure of the 
PTAB  violated  the  Appointments  Clause,  which  specifies  how  the 
President may appoint officers to assist in carrying out his responsi-
bilities.  Art. II, §2, cl. 2.  Arthrex argued that the APJs were principal 
officers who must be appointed by the President with the advice and 
consent of the Senate, and that their appointment by the Secretary of 
Commerce was therefore unconstitutional.  The Federal Circuit held 
that the APJs were principal officers whose appointments were uncon-
stitutional because neither the Secretary nor Director can review their 
decisions or remove them at will.  To remedy this constitutional viola-
tion,  the  Federal  Circuit  invalidated  the  APJs’  tenure  protections, 

—————— 

* Together with No. 19–1452, Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, 
Inc., et al. and No. 19–1458, Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al., 
also on certiorari to the same court.