UPDATE: Did the Supreme Court's 'Arthrex' Decision Open Pandora's Box?

In June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Arthrex that the statutory scheme appointing Patent Trial and Appeal Board administrative patent judges to adjudicate IPRs violates the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Court concluded that because APJ decisions in IPR proceedings are not reviewable by a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed officer, such determinations are not compatible with the powers of inferior officers. The PTO later decided that it would not accept requests for director review of institution decisions. This policy is now also being questioned in Arthrex's wake.

5 minute read July 01, 2022 at 01:58 AM
By
Robert E. Browne, Jr. and Ryan C. Deck
UPDATE: Did the Supreme Court's 'Arthrex' Decision Open Pandora's Box?

In June 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, 19-1458 (June 21, 2021) (slip opinion).

This premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 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.

Continue Reading

Is Your Law Firm’s AI Ready for Answer Engines and Clients?

AI claims are getting more scrutiny and regulators are looking more closely at whether organizations can substantiate what they say their AI does, while courts are beginning to address what happens when AI-generated search summaries get information wrong.

November 01, 2026

When AI Agents Trigger a Crisis, Part 2: Before the Agent Acts

This is the second in a two-part series on AI-driven crises. Part 1 examined communications during an incident while the facts are still developing. Part 2 addresses crisis plans, governance and tabletop exercises before an agent acts on behalf of the business.

November 01, 2026
Centellic Logo

© Copyright 2026 ALM Global, LLC trading as Centellic.

Advertise with Us Customer Support Terms of Service