Enter your email address to subscribe to updates to this case (by doing so, you are accepting the terms in our privacy policy):
Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc.
Consolidated with:
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19-1458 | Fed. Cir. | Mar 1, 2021 | Jun 21, 2021 | 5-4 | Roberts | OT 2020 |
Holding: The unreviewable authority wielded by Administrative Patent Judges during inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 21, 2021. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined Parts I and II of the opinion, and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined Part III of the opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined as to Parts I and II.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Justices craft their own remedy for violation of Constitution’s appointments clause (George Quillin and Jeanne Gills, June 24, 2021)
- Justices scale back “unreviewable authority” of administrative patent judges (George Quillin and Jeanne Gills, June 21, 2021)
- Justices appear conflicted about status of administrative patent judges (George Quillin and Jeanne Gills, March 3, 2021)
- Justices to consider appointments clause challenge to administrative patent judges (George Quillin and Jeanne Gills, February 26, 2021)
- February argument calendar includes immigration, voting-rights cases (Amy Howe, December 31, 2020)
- Supreme Court will consider constitutional status of administrative patent judges (Amy Howe, October 13, 2020)
- Relist Watch: Worst Monday in October (John Elwood, October 7, 2020)
- Petitions of the week: Abortion, alcohol, appointments and more (Andrew Hamm, July 30, 2020)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| Jun 30 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 5, 2020) |
| Jul 20 2020 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. VIDED |
| Jul 20 2020 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Arthrex, Inc. VIDED |
| Jul 20 2020 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, United States VIDED |
| Jul 22 2020 | Memorandum of respondent United States filed. VIDED. |
| Jul 23 2020 | Brief of respondents Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. filed. VIDED. |
| Aug 04 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of US Inventor, Inc. filed. |
| Aug 05 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of TiVo Corporation filed. |
| Aug 11 2020 | Reply of petitioner Arthrex, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
| Aug 12 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020. |
| Oct 05 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020. |
| Oct 13 2020 | Petition GRANTED, the petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-1434 is granted as to Federal Circuit case No. 2018-2140, and the petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-1452 is granted, all limited to Questions 1 and 2 as set forth in the July 22, 2020 Memorandum for the United States. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED. |
| Oct 13 2020 | Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-1434. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 19-1434. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.” |
| Dec 31 2020 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 1, 2021. VIDED. |
| Jan 14 2021 | CIRCULATED |
| Jan 25 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. for the Federal Circuit. |
| Mar 01 2021 | Argued. For United States: Malcolm L. Stewart, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al.: Mark A. Perry, Washington, D. C. For Arthrex, Inc.: Jeffrey A. Lamken, Washington, D. C. VIDED. |
| Jun 21 2021 | Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II, in which Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II. VIDED. |
| Jul 23 2021 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
