United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

The case originated from an inter partes review where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated claims of an Arthrex patent. Arthrex appealed, arguing that the PTAB's Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) were principal officers who must be appointed by the President with Senate confirmation under the Appointments Clause, but they were instead appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the APJs' appointment method was unconstitutional and, if so, what remedy should be applied to preserve the PTAB's inter partes review system.

The Supreme Court held that APJs are principal officers whose appointment by the Secretary of Commerce violated the Appointments Clause. The Court's remedy was to sever the statutory provision that insulated APJs from at-will removal by the Director of the USPTO, thus rendering them inferior officers and constitutionally appointed. The case was remanded for a new hearing before a new panel of APJs.

Whether Administrative Patent Judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board are principal officers under the Appointments Clause who must be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and whether their current appointment by the Secretary of Commerce is constitutional.

The decision preserved the patent inter partes review system by crafting a minimal remedy rather than invalidating the entire structure. It underscored the importance of presidential appointment and removal powers in administrative agencies, clarifying the status of APJs and reinforcing accountability within the Patent Office while impacting the validity of numerous patent disputes.