Federal Circuit: PTO Judges Were Unconstitutionally Appointed
The court says it can fix the problem by interpreting the Patent Act as giving the PTO director greater authority to remove APJs from service. In the meantime, possibly hundreds of the board's final written decisions will have to be reheard by a new panel.
October 31, 2019 at 05:14 PM
4 minute read
The administrative judges who hear challenges to patent validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are principal officers who should have been nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Thursday.
Instead of throwing the 270 or so APJs off the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the court said it will solve the problem by interpreting the Patent Act as providing the PTO director authority to remove APJs from service at will. "We conclude 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," Judge Kimberly Moore wrote for a unanimous panel in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew. Judges Jimmie Reyna and Raymond Chen concurred.
The decision—telegraphed in oral arguments earlier this month—will nevertheless cause a substantial disruption at the PTAB. Following the lead of a 2018 Supreme Court ruling on SEC judge appointments, the Federal Circuit ruled that any final written decisions from the PTAB that are pending on appeal, and where a party has raised the appointments issue, must be sent back to the PTAB for reconsideration by a different panel of judges. That reconsideration must include a new oral hearing, Moore wrote.
The Department of Justice and USPTO warned in supplemental briefs filed Tuesday that such a ruling could mean new hearings for "hundreds" of parties. The PTO had asked the court to limit any such relief to parties who had raised the appointments issue while before the PTAB, a much smaller subset. But Moore reasoned that it would have been futile for parties to raise the issue at the PTAB because the APJs would not have had the authority to declare their own appointments unconstitutional.
The upshot of Thursday's decision, if it's not reconsidered en banc or overturned by the Supreme Court, is an increased workload for PTAB judges in the short term and uncertain job security in the long term. "Never a dull moment," quipped Ropes & Gray partner Scott McKeown, who flagged the potential decision on Ropes' Patents Post Grant blog last week.
A spokesman for the PTO said the agency did not have immediate comment on what steps it might take in response to the decision. Another Federal Circuit panel is scheduled to hear arguments on the same issue in a separate case Monday. That could provide clues as to whether an en banc challenge might be worthwhile.
The Supreme Court ruled in Lucia v. SEC that administrative judges who aren't under close supervisory control of presidential appointees are principal officers who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. As Moore put it Thursday, "The Appointments Clause ensures that the individuals in these positions of significant authority are accountable to elected Executive officials. … It further ensures that the President, and those directly responsible to him, does not delegate his ultimate responsibility and obligation to supervise the actions of the Executive Branch."
The PTO had argued that PTAB judges are inferior officers because the PTO director, a presidential appointee, exercises supervision in a variety of ways. The director sets rules and regulations for the patent validity challenges established by the 2011 America Invents Act. The director also has the power to appoint and remove judges from the three-judge panels that preside over those challenges, and can overturn decisions he disagrees with, the PTO argued.
Moore disagreed that the PTO director's supervisory powers extend that far. "The lack of any presidentially-appointed officer who can review, vacate, or correct decisions by the APJs combined with the limited removal power lead us to conclude … that these are principal officers," she wrote.
The least intrusive way to meet the constitutional obligation under Lucia is to interpret the Patent Act as giving the director complete control to remove PTAB judges from service, rather than only to promote "efficiency," as the law was previously interpreted.
"Like the D.C. Circuit in Intercollegiate, we believe severing the restriction on removal of APJs renders them inferior rather than principal officers," Moore wrote. "Although the Director still does not have independent authority to review decisions rendered by APJs, his provision of policy and regulation to guide the outcomes of those decisions, coupled with the power of removal by the Secretary without cause provides significant constraint on issued decisions."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFTC Reaches Settlements With Two Companies on Claims of Selling Sensitive Location Data
Trending Stories
- 1How the Trump II Administration Can Combat Antisemitism
- 2Peirce, Crypto Lawyers Eye Potential Regulatory Changes Under SEC Chair-Nominee Atkins
- 3Newsmakers: Bracewell Adds Transactional Tax Partner in Dallas
- 4Martin Act Investigatory Tools—An Overview
- 5Storefront Pro Bono: Proposal for Modest Law Firm Commitment to Provide Direct Legal Services
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250