| 20-1654 |
Sonos, Inc. v. Implicit, LLC, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2021-05-26 |
Denied |
Response RequestedRelisted (2) |
administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause article-ii constitutional-law inferior-officers principal-officers separation-of-powers united-states |
Whether administrative patent judges are 'principal' or 'inferior' Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause |
| 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. |
Federal Circuit |
2021-05-21 |
GVR |
Response RequestedRelisted (2) |
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 |
Whether administrative patent judges are principal or inferior officers under the Appointments Clause |
| 20-1589 |
Kris Kaszuba, dba Hollywood Group v. Drew Hirshfeld, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office |
Federal Circuit |
2021-05-17 |
Denied |
Relisted (2) |
15-usc-1064 administrative-law appointments-clause civil-procedure constitutional-interpretation federal-circuit judicial-review lexmark principal-officers standing trademark trademark-law |
Has the Federal Circuit erred in refusing to follow this Court's Lexmark precedent, and in not applying precedent to standing under 15 U.S.C. § 1064 |
| 20-1285 |
Immunex Corporation v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2021-03-16 |
Denied |
|
35-usc-318 administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause inferior-officers patent-and-trademark-office principal-officers |
Whether administrative patent judges are principal officers under the Appointments Clause |
| 20-1220 |
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corporation, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2021-03-03 |
Denied |
|
administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause appointments-clause-interpretation constitutional-law inferior-officers judicial-review officer-status principal-officers separation-of-powers |
Whether administrative patent judges are 'principal' or 'inferior' Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause |
| 20-853 |
Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Fall Line Patents, LLC, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-12-28 |
GVR |
Response RequestedRelisted (3) |
administrative-law administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause constitutional-interpretation department-head inferior-officers officer-status patent-office principal-officers separation-of-powers us-patent-and-trademark-office |
Whether administrative patent judges are principal officers or inferior officers under the Appointments Clause |
| 20-728 |
adidas AG v. Nike, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-11-25 |
Denied |
|
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 |
Whether administrative patent judges are principal or inferior officers under the Appointments Clause |
| 20-679 |
Micron Technology, Inc. v. North Star Innovations, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-11-17 |
Denied |
Relisted (2) |
appointments-clause inferior-officers inter-partes-review patent-and-trademark-office principal-officers standing |
Whether administrative patent judges are principal or inferior officers under the Appointments Clause |
| 20-408 |
Fredman Bros. Furniture Company, Inc. v. Bedgear, LLC |
Federal Circuit |
2020-09-29 |
Dismissed |
Relisted (2) |
administrative-officers administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause constitutional-law inferior-officers judicial-review patent-law principal-officers separation-of-powers united-states |
Whether administrative patent judges are 'principal' or 'inferior' Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause |
| 20-273 |
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Rovi Guides, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-09-02 |
Dismissed |
|
administrative-law administrative-patent-judges agency-adjudication appointments-clause constitutional-interpretation inferior-officers judicial-review patent-judges principal-officers separation-of-powers united-states-patent-and-trademark-office |
Whether administrative patent judges are principal or inferior officers under the Appointments Clause |
| 20-150 |
ThermoLife International LLC v. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office |
Federal Circuit |
2020-08-13 |
Denied |
|
administrative-patent-judges appellate-review appointments-clause chenery-doctrine constitutional-appointment patent-trial-and-appeal-board principal-officers rehearing unconstitutional-appointments |
Whether the Federal Circuit violated the Chenery doctrine |
| 20-92 |
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corporation, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-07-29 |
Denied |
Relisted (2) |
administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause appointments-clause-interpretation constitutional-law inferior-officers officer-status principal-officers separation-of-powers |
Whether administrative patent judges are 'principal' or 'inferior' Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause |
| 19-1452 |
Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-07-02 |
Judgment Issued |
Amici (1)Relisted (2) |
administrative-adjudicators administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause constitutional-interpretation federal-circuit inferior-officers lucia-v-sec patent-trial-and-appeal-board principal-officers |
Whether administrative patent judges are 'principal' or 'inferior' Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause |
| 19-1434 |
United States v. Arthrex, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-06-29 |
Judgment Issued |
Amici (2)Relisted (2) |
administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause constitutional-law inferior-officer inferior-officers patent patent-and-trademark-office principal-officer principal-officers standing uspto |
Whether administrative patent judges are principal officers under the Appointments Clause |
| 18-1521 |
Unión de Trabajadores de la Industria Eléctrica y Riego, Inc. v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, et al. |
First Circuit |
2019-06-07 |
Judgment Issued |
Amici (1)Response Waived |
administrative-law appointments-clause constitutional-challenge constitutional-law de-facto-officer de-facto-officer-doctrine ongoing-injury oversight-board principal-officers puerto-rico relief uncon-stitutional-appointments united-states-constitution |
Whether the de facto officer doctrine allows for unconstitutionally appointed principal Officers of the United States to continue acting, leaving the … |
| 18-1475 |
Aurelius Investment, LLC, et al. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al. |
First Circuit |
2019-05-28 |
Judgment Issued |
Amici (1)Response Waived |
appointments-clause constitutional-challenge constitutional-law constitutional-violation de-facto-officer-doctrine meaningful-relief ongoing-injury principal-officers separation-of-powers standing |
Does the de facto officer doctrine allow courts to deny meaningful relief to successful separation-of-powers challengers who are suffering ongoing inj… |
| 18-189 |
Smartflash LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2018-08-14 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
35-usc-101 administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause covered-business-method-review due-process patent-eligibility patent-invalidation patent-trial-and-appeal-board principal-officers |
Whether Administrative Patent Judges are principal Officers under the Appointments Clause |