Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 55

8 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

§§2(b)(2), 316(a)(4), 326(a)(4).  He has designed a process to
designate  and  de-designate  Board  decisions  as  preceden-
tial.  Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Standard Operating 
Procedure 2 (Revision 10), pp. 1–2 (Sept. 20, 2018) (SOP2).
He  may  issue  binding  policy  directives  that  govern  the 
Board. §3(a)(2)(A).  And he may release “instructions that 
include exemplary applications of patent laws to fact pat-
terns,  which  the  Board  can  refer  to  when  presented  with 
factually similar cases.”  941 F. 3d, at 1331.  His oversight
is  not  just  administrative;  it  is  substantive  as  well.
§3(a)(2)(A).

The Director has yet another “powerful tool for control.” 
Edmond, 520 U. S., at 664.  He may designate which of the 
250-plus  administrative  patent  judges  hear  certain  cases
and  may  remove  administrative  patent  judges  from  their 
specific assignments without cause.  See §6(c).  So, if any
administrative patent judges depart from the Director’s di-
rection, he has ample power to rein them in to avoid erro-
neous  decisions.  And,  if  an  administrative  patent  judge
consistently  fails  to  follow  instructions,  the  Secretary  has
the  authority  to  fire  him.  5  U. S. C.  §7513(a);  35  U. S. C. 
§3(c); Cobert v. Miller, 800 F. 3d 1340, 1351 (CA Fed. 2015) 
(interpreting §7513(a) to allow removal for “ ‘[f]ailure to fol-
low instructions or abide by requirements [that] affec[t] the 
agency’s ability to carry out its mission’ ”).2 

To be sure, the Director’s power over administrative pa-
tent judges is not complete.  He cannot singlehandedly re-
verse decisions.  Still, he has two powerful checks on Board 
decisions not found in Edmond. 

Unlike  the  Judge  Advocate  General  and  CAAF  in  Ed-
mond,  the  Director  may  influence  individual  proceedings. 

—————— 

2 Although not applicable to any who served on the Board in this suit, 
a small subset of administrative patent judges are subject to a slightly 
different removal standard.  See 83 Fed.  Reg. 29324 (2018); see also  5 
U. S. C. §7543(a); 5 CFR pt. 359 (2020); Brief for United States 5, n. 1.