SCOTUS recently granted three petitions for certiorari challenging the constitutionality of the administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted three petitions for certiorari challenging the constitutionality of the administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The issues before the Court are whether PTAB judges must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate and, if so, whether the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals properly cured the defect by severing a portion of the Patent Act restricting the removal of administrative patent judges (APJs).
Constitutional Challenge to Appointment of PTAB Judges
The Appointments Clause of Article II provides:
[The President] … shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
APJs are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Director of the USPTO pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(a). The issue is whether APJs are “Officers of the United States” and if so, whether they are inferior officers or principal officers. If they are deemed “principal officers,” they must be appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, as opposed to by the Secretary of Commerce.
The Federal Circuit held that the appointment of the APJs by the Secretary of Commerce violates the Appointments Clause, concluding that neither the USPTO Director nor the Secretary of Commerce “exercise[s] sufficient direction and supervision over APJs to render them inferior officers,” citing “[t]he lack of any presidentially-appointed officer who can review, vacate, or correct decisions by the APJs combined with the limited removal power.” In an attempt to “cure” this defect, the Federal Circuit found that “severing the portion of the Patent Act restricting removal of the APJs is sufficient to render the APJs inferior officers and remedy the constitutional appointment problem.”
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on October 13, 2020. The Court consolidated the three granted petitions into one hour of oral argument. The justices must ultimately decide the following issues:
(1) Whether, for purposes of the Constitution’s appointments clause, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are principal officers who must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s advice and consent, or “inferior Officers” whose appointment Congress has permissibly vested in a department head; and (2) whether, if administrative patent judges are principal officers, the court of appeals properly cured any appointments clause defect in the current statutory scheme prospectively by severing the application of 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) to those judges.
While the case will be heard during the October 2020/2021 Term, an argument date has not yet been scheduled. We will continue to closely follow this case and will post updates as additional information becomes available.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, David Einhorn, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
Reputational Risk and Legal Exposure: Why New Jersey Businesses Must Manage Them Together
New Jersey businesses must manage legal and reputational risk together because modern disputes play out on two fronts at once: the legal proceeding itself and the court of public opinion, where customers, employees, investors, and business partners often reach conclusions long before a judge or jury has had the opportunity to evaluate the facts. Success […]
Eviction Is Not Always the End: Understanding Post-Possession Rent Claims in New Jersey and New York
No. An eviction does not automatically end a tenant’s obligation to pay rent. Post-eviction rent claims are common because recovering possession resolves who has the right to occupy the premises, but it does not extinguish the tenant’s contractual obligations under the lease. Whether unpaid or future rent remains owed depends on three factors: the lease’s […]
Company Dissolved? Legal and Financial Consequences to Expect
A company is dissolved; legally, it ceases to exist. Accordingly, dissolution results in significant legal and financial consequences. It is a process that must be properly managed to avoid continuing liability. The Corporate Dissolution Process Corporate dissolution is the legal process of formally closing a corporation, paying its debts and distributing the remaining assets. Most […]
The Legal Implications of Signing a Triple Net Lease
A triple net lease is a commercial lease in which the tenant pays the property’s real estate taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs, known as the three nets, in addition to base rent. They are most often used in freestanding retail and office buildings and in large single-tenant industrial properties, with terms that typically run 10 […]
When to Settle and When to Fight: A Litigator's Framework
Every lawsuit comes with a cost, and knowing when to settle a lawsuit is one of the most consequential decisions a business owner will face. Experienced litigators understand how to minimize cost and obtain certainty for their clients. For many business owners, the decision is viewed almost entirely through a financial lens: What will it cost […]
What Is Corporate Litigation? A Clear Guide for Businesses
Corporate litigation, also called commercial litigation or business litigation, is the formal legal process through which companies resolve disputes in the civil court system. When a business relationship breaks down and other resolution methods have failed, litigation provides a structured legal mechanism for asserting rights, recovering damages, enforcing obligations, and obtaining court-ordered relief. Unlike criminal […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
