U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday said they will rule on constitutionality of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tribunal used by Apple and other. SCOTUS may rein in the power of in-house judges serving on a who have the ability to cancel patents in a case involving a dispute between surgical device makers.
Justices raised questions during arguments in the case about the constitutionality of the agency’s selection of the judges and grappled over how to address the issue. Their ruling, due by the end of June, could jeopardize the work of a tribunal called the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that adjudicates the validity of hundreds of patents annually.
The tribunal, created by Congress in 2011, is an administrative court run by the patent office. It takes a second look at patents issued by the agency and often cancels them, much to the dismay of some inventors.
At issue is whether the agency’s more than 250 patent judges were appointed in violation of the Constitution’s so-called appointments clause, which requires certain high government officials – known as “principal officers” – to be named by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Other “inferior officers” with lesser authority may be appointed and supervised by department heads, who are themselves named by the president…
In recent years the tribunal’s reviews have become a quick and cheap way for companies that are prime targets for infringement suits, such as such as Apple Inc and Alphabet Inc’s Google, to try to invalidate patents.
MacDailyNews Take: One thing’s for sure: The U.S. Patent “system” is a mess and patent trolls have long been and remain out of control, but any tribunal making decisions with sometimes very large monetary implications should ultimately be accountable to voters, perhaps via Senate approval.
Uh, oh.
“Justices raised questions during arguments in the case about the constitutionality of the agency’s selection of the judges”
Probably all conservative Republicans… 😉
Most likely, since libturds have no interest in constitutionality,
To quote the article, “The tribunal was created by Congress in 2011,” when the House was controlled by Republicans. If there is something unconstitutional here, both parties are to blame. This is just a part of a wider debate over the line between federal officers who require Senate confirmation and those who do not, and over how much independence can be exercised by autonomous regulatory agencies.
Passing the bill during a Republican Congress is irrelevant. But for once I do agree the issue is accountability…
Folks, how can we keep this civil and informative?
What are the key issues here?
For example:
What should the SCOTUS judges be looking at the make the decisions?
What the issues and possible consequences of their decision?
What does this mean for big tech and patent trolls?
How do you think this will affect us as end users?
There are lots of key issues here to comment on. What would it take you for do that?
Sorry GoeB and Hal, you are going to like to hear this, but if the very best you can do is comment thow out a meaningless comment on conservative Republicans and the very best response you can come up with involves “liberturds”, what should I conclude about your intellectual capacity?
Again sorry, but how about showing you really have by answering some of the questions that I posed above?
My post was sarcasm, but something has gone badly wrong for too long. Well, according to you we have no intellectual capacity so why are you bothering to ask us questions? I am not a Supreme Court Justice, patent attorney, Senator or Congressman, so I suggest you start there…
Being an inventor in the medical bio therapeutic and vaccine domains, I know first hand that the US patent office is indeed broken. It is heavily biased towards US companies allowing them ‘originality’ where they won’t for non-US firms. I hate the phrase, “….obvious to those versed in the art….” because obvious is too subjective and open to (US) bias.
Sorry to hear that. Certainly reforms are needed…
MDN needs some proofreading for this.
What’s wrong with this? ;P
“SCOTUS may rein in the power of in-house judges serving on a who have the ability to cancel patents in a case involving a dispute between surgical device makers.”
Everything…