Whether this Court should vacate the judgment below in view of its recent decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., and remand so that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may in turn order the Acting Director to decide whether to rehear the petition filed by Chevron Oronite Company LLC

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether this Court should vacate the judgment below in view of its recent decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), and remand so that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may in turn order the Acting Director to decide whether to rehear the petition filed by Chevron Oronite Company LLC. 2. Petitioner Infineum’s Appointments Clause challenge was raised with respect to a November 6, 2019 final written decision issued after the Federal Circuit’s Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), opinion but before the issuance of the mandate pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41 and before this Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 1418S. Ct. 1970 (2021). To the extent that this Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex did not foreclose the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the remedy ordered by Arthreax v. Smith & Nephew cured the Appointments Clause violation, whether the panel decision was final and effective on the date of that decision such that the Appointments Clause violation was cured prior to the mandate being issued in that case.