IP at the Supreme Court Series: United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
March 1, 2021 | 5:00pm
American University Washington College of Law regularly invites counsel of record and counsel for selected amici to offer post-argument reflections in intellectual property (and related) cases heard by the Supreme Court. These events are held on the afternoon of oral argument before the Court.
(1) Whether, for purposes of the Constitution’s appointments clause, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are principal officers who must be appointed by the president with the Senate’s advice and consent, or “inferior Officers” whose appointment Congress has permissibly vested in a department head; and (2) whether, if administrative patent judges are principal officers, the court of appeals properly cured any appointments clause defect in the current statutory scheme prospectively by severing the application of 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) to those judges.
Mark A. Perry
Partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Counsel of Record for Respondent Smith & Nephew, Inc. and Arthrocare Corp.
Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Associate Justice, Republic of Palau Supreme Court
Brief For The Cato Institute and Prof. Gregory Dolin as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents
Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law
Robert K. Kry
Founding Partner at MoloLamken LLP
Counsel for Respondent Arthrex, Inc.
Stephen I. Vladeck
Charles Alan Wright Chair In Federal Courts at University of Texas School of Law Counsel of Record, Cross-Industry Groups As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners In Nos. 19-1434 And 19-1452, And Respondents In No. 19-1458
Charles Tilford McCormick Professor of Law at University of Texas School of Law
ALL BRIEFS AVAILABLE ON SCOTUSblog: United States v. Arthrex, Inc.