No. 20-728
Tags: 5-usc-7513 administrative-law appointments-clause constitutional-law inferior-officers judicial-review patent-judges principal-officers severance statutory-interpretation us-patent-and-trademark-office
Key Terms:
Patent Trademark Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri Jurisdiction
Patent Trademark Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri Jurisdiction
Latest Conference:
2021-02-19
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether administrative patent judges are principal or inferior officers under the Appointments Clause
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. IL § 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 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.
Docket Entries
2021-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-01-08
Reply of petitioner Adidas AG filed. (Distributed)
2020-12-28
Brief of respondent Nike, Inc. in opposition filed.
2020-11-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 28, 2020)
Attorneys
Adidas AG
Adam Howard Charnes — Kilpatrick Townsend, Petitioner
Adam Howard Charnes — Kilpatrick Townsend, Petitioner
Nike, Inc.
Aaron Gabriel Fountain — DLA Piper LLP (US), Respondent
Aaron Gabriel Fountain — DLA Piper LLP (US), Respondent