Whether administrative patent judges are principal officers under the Appointments Clause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The first two questions presented here are the same as those presented in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 19-1458; Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1452; and United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434. The third question is new. 1. Whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, 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. 2. Whether, if administrative patent judges are principal officers, the Federal Circuit properly cured any Appointments Clause defect in the current statutory scheme prospectively by severing the application of 5 U.S.C. § 7518(a) to those judges. 8. Whether this Court granting Arthrex the relief it seeks would vitiate the court of appeal’s prior forfeiture rule and deny the Patent Office Director the authority under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b) to issue a certificate cancelling Immunex’s patent claims.