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.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
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.
US Supreme Court Poised to Decide Fate of PTAB Judges
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
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.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
