US Supreme Court finds authority held by administrative patent judges to be unconstitutional and mandates procedural cure to give USPTO Director more control

Charles R Macedo, David P Goldberg and Chandler Sturm

Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 2021, vol. 16, issue 12, 1293-1296

Abstract: United States v Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458, 594 US ____, slip opinion, United States Supreme Court, 21 June 2021 (Arthrex III)Arthrex, Inc. v Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F3d 1320 (Federal Circuit 2019) (‘Arthrex I’), rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, 953 F3d 760 (Federal Circuit 2020) (‘Arthrex II’), petition for certiorari filedOn 21 June 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. finding that the authority of administrative patent judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to issue Final Written Decisions without review by a superior is inconsistent with their appointment as inferior officers under the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court sought to cure this constitutional violation by giving the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office more control over the rulings of APJs.

Date: 2021
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiplp/jpab155 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:16:y:2021:i:12:p:1293-1296.

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice is currently edited by Eleonora Rosati, Stefano Barazza and Marius Schneider

More articles in Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice from Oxford University Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().