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

Robert E. Browne, Jr. and

Ryan C. Deck

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

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.

Entrepreneurship Is Already Hard: Rising Above Extraordinary Personal Crises to Build an Award-Winning Professional Reputation

Entrepreneurship. It has such a romantic ring, doesn’t it? When we hear the word, we think of incredibly successful people who must lead a charmed life. But the truth of the matter is often far from that. Just ask Melissa Rogozinski whose recent book, Becoming Phoenix, tells a much different story.

July 31, 2026

Applying the Zero Trust Model to Manage Risks of Agentic AI

Agentic AI introduces risks that are novel and complex, but the most effective response is a familiar one. Zero Trust answers the problem of when an AI agent misfires on its own by constraining what an agent can do rather than betting on how it will behave.

July 31, 2026

California’s AI Transparency Stack: From State Obligation to Adoption Strategy

California is betting that it can accelerate AI adoption by acting as a demanding, trusted buyer, and that the governance evidence it extracts through procurement can become infrastructure the rest of the market reuses.

July 31, 2026

How to Prevent Your Outsourcing or Managed Services Engagement from Failing

The outsourcing of office and administrative services is expected to grow 50%-60% in the next five years. Contrary to what decision-makers think, and what the service providers hope you think, the biggest risk in outsourcing isn't choosing the wrong provider. It's outsourcing the wrong process, under the wrong model, with the wrong performance measures and contract terms.

July 31, 2026

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

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

Continue Reading

Entrepreneurship Is Already Hard: Rising Above Extraordinary Personal Crises to Build an Award-Winning Professional Reputation

Applying the Zero Trust Model to Manage Risks of Agentic AI

California’s AI Transparency Stack: From State Obligation to Adoption Strategy

How to Prevent Your Outsourcing or Managed Services Engagement from Failing