No. 20-1631
Drew Hirshfeld, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Implicit, LLC, et al.
Tags: administrative-law administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause constitutional-law inferior-officers judicial-appointment officer-status patent-office principal-officers separation-of-powers us-patent-and-trademark-office
Key Terms:
Trademark Patent Privacy
Trademark Patent Privacy
Latest Conference:
2021-10-15
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether administrative patent judges are principal or inferior officers under the Appointments Clause
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED 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. (I)
Docket Entries
2021-11-19
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
2021-10-18
Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of <i>United States</i> v. <i>Arthrex, Inc.</i>, 594 U. S. ___ (2021).
2021-09-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/15/2021.
2021-09-10
Response from respondents Implicit, LLC, et al. filed.
2021-08-11
Response Requested. (Due September 10, 2021)
2021-07-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-06-21
Brief of respondent Apple Inc. in support filed.
2021-05-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 21, 2021)
Attorneys
Andrew, Acting Under Secretary of Commercie for Intellectual Property and Director, US Patent and Trade Office Hirshfeld
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Petitioner
Apple Inc.
Debra J. McComas — Haynes & Boone, LLP, Respondent
Implicit, LLC, et al.