IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jiplap/v16y2021i12p1293-1296..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Charles R Macedo
  • David P Goldberg
  • Chandler Sturm

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles R Macedo & David P Goldberg & Chandler Sturm, 2021. "US Supreme Court finds authority held by administrative patent judges to be unconstitutional and mandates procedural cure to give USPTO Director more control," Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(12), pages 1293-1296.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:16:y:2021:i:12:p:1293-1296.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiplp/jpab155
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:16:y:2021:i:12:p:1293-1296.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiplp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.