United States v. Arthrex, Inc.

In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court reviewed whether administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board were principal officers who must be appointed by the President with Senate confirmation under the Appointments Clause. APJs were appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, and Arthrex argued this was unconstitutional. The Court held that APJs' authority to render final decisions in inter partes review made them principal officers, so their appointment by the Secretary violated the Appointments Clause. To remedy the violation, the Court ruled that the Director of the USPTO must have authority to review and rehear APJ decisions, making APJs inferior officers. The case was remanded for Arthrex to receive a rehearing. This ruling preserved the PTAB system while fixing the constitutional defect.

The Supreme Court held that APJs were unconstitutionally appointed principal officers. The remedy was to make APJs inferior officers by giving the USPTO Director authority to review and set aside their decisions. The case was vacated and remanded for Arthrex to seek a new hearing before a properly constituted panel.

Whether APJs are principal officers under the Appointments Clause and whether their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce is unconstitutional; whether the proper remedy is to invalidate PTAB decisions or to sever the tenure protections and allow Director review.

The decision preserved the PTAB's ability to conduct inter partes reviews while reinforcing Appointments Clause limits. It altered PTAB oversight by centralizing review authority in the Director, impacting patent validity challenges and administrative adjudication.