No.
`
`
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`————
`ARTHREX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.; ARTHROCARE CORP.;
`AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`Respondents.
`
`————
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`to the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`————
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`————
`
`ANTHONY P. CHO
`DAVID J. GASKEY
`JESSICA E. FLEETHAM
`DAVID L. ATALLAH
`CARLSON, GASKEY
` & OLDS, P.C.
`400 West Maple Road,
` Suite 350
`Birmingham, MI 48009
`(248) 988-8360(cid:3)
`
`CHARLES W. SABER
`SALVATORE P. TAMBURO
`BLANK ROME LLP
`1825 Eye Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`(202) 420-2200
`
`JEFFREY A. LAMKEN
`Counsel of Record
`ROBERT K. KRY
`JAMES A. BARTA
`MOLOLAMKEN LLP
`The Watergate, Suite 500
`600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20037
`(202) 556-2000
`jlamken@mololamken.com
`
`JOHN W. SCHMIEDING
`TREVOR ARNOLD
`ARTHREX, INC.
`1370 Creekside Blvd.
`Naples, FL 34108
`(239) 643-5553
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`(cid:58)(cid:44)(cid:47)(cid:54)(cid:50)(cid:49)(cid:16)(cid:40)(cid:51)(cid:40)(cid:54)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:44)(cid:49)(cid:55)(cid:44)(cid:49)(cid:42)(cid:3)(cid:38)(cid:50)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:44)(cid:49)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:177)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:26)(cid:27)(cid:28)(cid:16)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:28)(cid:25)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:177)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:58)(cid:36)(cid:54)(cid:43)(cid:44)(cid:49)(cid:42)(cid:55)(cid:50)(cid:49)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:39)(cid:17)(cid:38)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:3)
`
`

`

`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`In 2011, Congress enacted a potent new mechanism
`for challenging patents through adversarial proceedings
`at the Patent Office known as inter partes review. See
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29,
`§ 6(a), 125 Stat. 284, 299 (2011). Congress made that new
`mechanism applicable even to patents that were applied
`for and issued before the statute’s enactment. The
`Patent Office relied on that new procedure to revoke
`Arthrex’s patent claims, even though Arthrex applied for
`its patent and disclosed its invention to the public in
`reliance on the prior regime.
`While Arthrex’s case was pending on appeal, the Fed-
`eral Circuit decided in another case between the same
`parties that the administrative patent judges who con-
`duct inter partes reviews hold office in violation of the
`Appointments Clause. See Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith &
`Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Fed-
`eral Circuit has repeatedly refused to apply that ruling to
`cases like this one where the appellant did not challenge
`the appointments in its opening brief on appeal.
`The questions presented are:
`1. Whether the retroactive application of inter partes
`review to patents that were applied for before the Amer-
`ica Invents Act violates the Fifth Amendment.
`2.
` Whether a court of appeals can invoke forfeiture
`principles to refuse to address a constitutional claim in a
`pending appeal despite an intervening change in law.
`
`(i)
`
`

`

`ii
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW
`Petitioner Arthrex, Inc., was the patent owner in pro-
`ceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and
`the appellant in the court of appeals.
`Respondents Smith & Nephew, Inc., and ArthroCare
`Corp. were petitioners in proceedings before the Patent
`Trial and Appeal Board and appellees in the court of
`appeals.
`Respondent United States of America was an inter-
`venor in the court of appeals.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`iii
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 29.6, petitioner Arthrex,
`Inc., states that it has no parent corporation and that no
`publicly held company owns 10% or more of its stock.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`iv
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`The following proceedings are directly related to this
`case within the meaning of Rule 14.1(b)(iii):
`(cid:120)(cid:3) Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 2018-
`1584 (Fed. Cir.), judgment entered on August 21,
`2019; and
`(cid:120)(cid:3) Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc., Case
`IPR2016-00918 (P.T.A.B.), final written decision
`entered on October 16, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Opinions Below .............................................................
`Statement of Jurisdiction ...........................................
`Constitutional and Statutory
`Provisions Involved ................................................
`Preliminary Statement ...............................................
`Statement ......................................................................
`I.(cid:3) Statutory Background ....................................
`A.(cid:3) The Patent Act ..........................................
`B.(cid:3) Ex Parte Reexamination .........................
`C.(cid:3) Inter Partes Reexamination ...................
`D.(cid:3) Inter Partes Review ................................
`II.(cid:3) Proceedings Below ..........................................
`A.(cid:3) Arthrex’s Patent Application ...................
`B.(cid:3) The Infringement Litigation ...................
`C.(cid:3) The Inter Partes Review ..........................
`D.(cid:3) The Federal Circuit’s Decision ...............
`Reasons for Granting the Petition ...........................
`I.(cid:3) The Court Should Grant Review
`To Resolve Whether Retroactive
`Application of Inter Partes Review
`Violates the Fifth Amendment ......................
`A.(cid:3) The Issue Is Important ...........................
`B.(cid:3) The Court of Appeals’ Decision
`Is Wrong ....................................................
`C.(cid:3) The Court Should Grant Review
`in This Case and in Celgene and
`Consolidate the Two Cases .....................
`
`Page
`1
`1
`
`2
`2
`4
`4
`4
`5
`5
`7
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`13
`
`14
`14
`
`20
`
`25
`
`
`
`(v)
`
`

`

`Page
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29
`
`30
`
`1a
`
`vi
`TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
`
`
`
`
`II.(cid:3) The Court Should Address Whether
`Arthrex ’907 ’s Appointments Clause
`Holding Applies to All Cases Pending
`on Appeal ..........................................................
`A.(cid:3) Administrative Patent Judges Are
`Appointed in Violation of the
`Appointments Clause ................................
`B.(cid:3) Arthrex ’907 ’s Applicability to
`Pending Cases Is an Important
`and Recurring Issue..................................
`C.(cid:3) The Federal Circuit’s Approach
`Is Wrong .....................................................
`D.(cid:3) The Court Should Either Grant the
`Petition or Hold the Case Pending
`Sanofi, Customedia, and Arthrex ’907 ....
`Conclusion .....................................................................
`Appendix A – Opinion of the Court
`of Appeals (Aug. 21, 2019) .....................................
`Appendix B – Final Written Decision
`of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`(Oct. 16, 2017) .......................................................... 21a
`Appendix C – Order of the Court of Appeals
`Denying Rehearing and Rehearing
`En Banc (Nov. 8, 2019) ........................................... 101a
`Appendix D – Relevant Constitutional
`and Statutory Provisions ....................................... 103a
`
`32
`33
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`vii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`27
`
`10
`
`18
`
`30
`
`CASES
`Abbott v. United States, 562 U.S. 8 (2010) ...........
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................... passim
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`No. 18-2140, 2020 WL 1328925
`(Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2020) ................................ 28, 29
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-1047 (E.D. Tex. filed
`June 17, 2015) .....................................................
`Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC,
`805 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .........................
`Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft
`Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989) ............. 2, 4, 19, 21
`Bos. Sci. Neuromodulation Corp.
`v. Nevro Corp., No. 19-1582
`(Fed. Cir. Nov. 22, 2019) ...................................
`Celgene Corp. v. Peter, No. 19-1074
`(filed Feb. 26, 2020) .................................... passim
`Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) ......................................... 12, 15, 25
`Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt,
`543 U.S. 631 (2005) .............................................
`Ciena Corp. v. Oyster Optics, LLC,
`No. 19-2117 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 28, 2020) ..............
`Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp.,
`No. 19-601 (filed Nov. 4, 2019) ..........................
`Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp.,
`778 F. App’x 954 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ....................
`
`20
`
`30
`
`25
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`viii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`31
`
`31
`
`25
`
`Curtis Publ’g Co. v. Butts,
`388 U.S. 130 (1967) .............................................
`Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish
`Network Corp., 941 F.3d 1173
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) ......................................... 29, 32, 33
`In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................
`Edmond v. United States,
`28
`520 U.S. 651 (1997) .............................................
`Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ......... 11, 23, 24
`Enzo Life Scis., Inc. v. Becton,
`Dickinson & Co., No. 19-1097
`(filed Mar. 3, 2020) .............................................
`Enzo Life Scis., Inc. v. Becton,
`Dickinson & Co., 780 F. App’x 903
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo
`Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002) .................
`Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ.
`Expense Bd. v. Coll. Sav. Bank,
`527 U.S. 627 (1999) .............................................
`Freytag v. Comm’r, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) ..............
`Genentech, Inc. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`946 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .........................
`Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962) ........
`Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552 (1941) ...........
`J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer
`Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001) ........ 4, 21
`Joseph v. United States,
`135 S. Ct. 705 (2014) ...........................................
`
`15
`32
`31
`
`15
`
`19
`
`20
`32
`
`31
`
`
`
`

`

`ix
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`32
`23
`
`32
`
`22
`
`Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.,
`511 U.S. 244 (1994) .......................................... 20, 23
`Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) ....................
`13
`Lynce v. Mathis, 519 U.S. 433 (1997) ...................
`20
`Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571 (1934) .......
`20
`Maricopa County v. Lopez-Valenzuela,
`135 S. Ct. 428 (2014) ...........................................
`Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999) ..................
`McClurg v. Kingsland,
`42 U.S. (1 How.) 202 (1843) ............................ 21, 24
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship,
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) ............................................. 4, 22
`Nguyen v. United States,
`539 U.S. 69 (2003) ...............................................
`Novartis AG v. Noven Pharm. Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .........................
`Oil States Energy Servs., LLC
`v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC,
`138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018) ................................... passim
`OSI Pharm., LLC v. Apotex Inc.,
`939 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .........................
`Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935) ........
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Tech.
`Co., No. 18-1768 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2019) ........
`In re Recreative Techs. Corp.,
`83 F.3d 1394 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ...........................
`Regents of Univ. of N.M. v. Knight,
`321 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .........................
`Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Serv.,
`139 S. Ct. 1853 (2019) ...................................... 17, 22
`
`15
`20
`
`30
`
`17
`
`21
`
`
`
`

`

`x
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`21
`
`Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v.
`United States, 275 U.S. 331 (1928) ..................
`Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.
`Mylan Pharm. Inc., 791 F. App’x 916
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) ..................................... 29, 30, 32, 33
`SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ................................... 5, 7, 17
`Smartflash LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`No. 18-189 (cert. denied Oct. 1, 2018) ..............
`In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................... 5, 6
`Thorpe v. Hous. Auth. of Durham,
`393 U.S. 268 (1969) .............................................
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
`No. 18-1489, 771 F. App’x 493
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................................................
`United States v. Stitt, 139 S. Ct. 399 (2018) ........
`Ex parte Wood, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.)
`603 (1824) ............................................................
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`U.S. Const. art. II, § 2 .......................................... 12, 28
`U.S. Const. art. III .............................................. 14, 28
`U.S. Const. amend. V ....................................... passim
`U.S. Const. amend. VII ..........................................
`14
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`Patent Act:
`8
`35 U.S.C. § 3(c) ....................................................
`35 U.S.C. § 6(a) ................................................. 7, 28
`35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(4) ..............................................
`7
`
`31
`26
`
`31
`
`30
`
`20
`
`
`
`

`

`xi
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`
`Page(s)
`35 U.S.C. § 6(c) ....................................................
`18
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ....................................................
`4
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ...............................................
`24
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .................................................... 4, 9
`35 U.S.C. § 122(b) ...............................................
`4
`35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) ................................... 4, 15, 24
`35 U.S.C. § 154(b) ...............................................
`16
`35 U.S.C. § 154(d)(1) ..........................................
`24
`35 U.S.C. § 183 ....................................................
`21
`35 U.S.C. § 261 .................................................. 4, 21
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ...............................................
`4
`35 U.S.C. § 303(a) ............................................ 5, 17
`35 U.S.C. § 304 ....................................................
`5
`35 U.S.C. § 305 ............................................ 5, 17, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 306 ....................................................
`18
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ....................................................
`7
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................. 7, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ............................................. 7, 22
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a) ............................................. 7, 22
`35 U.S.C. § 316(c) ................................................
`7
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d) ...............................................
`18
`35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1) ..........................................
`8
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ............................................. 7, 22
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) ...............................................
`8
`35 U.S.C. § 319 .................................................. 8, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ............................................. 7, 18
`Patent Act (2006):
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a) (2006) .................................. 6, 17
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (2006) .............................. 6, 17, 18
`35 U.S.C. § 314(b) (2006) ...................................
`6
`35 U.S.C. § 315(a) (2006) ....................................
`18
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (2006) ...................................
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`16
`
`16
`
`xii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`
`Page(s)
`Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015 (1980) .............. 2, 5
`§ 8(b), 94 Stat. at 3027 ........................................
`5
`Uruguay Round Agreements Act,
`Pub. L. No. 103-465, § 532,
`108 Stat. 4809, 4984 (1994) ................................
`Patent Term Guarantee Act of 1999,
`Pub. L. No. 106-113, § 4402,
`113 Stat. 1501A-557............................................
`Optional Inter Partes Reexamination
`Procedure Act of 1999, Pub. L.
`No. 106-113, §§ 4601 et seq.,
`113 Stat. 1501A-567............................................ 2, 5
`§ 4608(a), 113 Stat. at 1501A-572 ............... 6, 24
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
`Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) ..... passim
`§ 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. at 293 ..............................
`24
`§ 6(c)(2)(A), 125 Stat. at 304 .........................
`8
`§ 6(f )(2)(A), 125 Stat. at 311 .........................
`24
`5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) .................................................. 8, 28
`28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ..................................................
`2
`37 C.F.R. § 1.116 ......................................................
`18
`37 C.F.R. § 1.510(a) .................................................
`5
`37 C.F.R. § 1.550(b) .................................................
`18
`37 C.F.R. § 1.550(g) .................................................
`5
`37 C.F.R. § 1.937(b) .................................................
`18
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a) ............................................. 8, 18
`LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-464 (1999) .....................
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1 (2011) ........................
`
`16
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`xiii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`19
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`Congressional Research Service, U.S.
`Research and Development Funding and
`Performance: Fact Sheet (Jan. 24, 2020),
`https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44307.pdf ............
`Gregory Dolin & Irina Manta,
`Taking Patents, 73 Wash. & Lee
`L. Rev. 719 (2016) ....................................... 6, 19, 23
`Josh Makower, et al., FDA Impact on U.S.
`Medical Technology Innovation (2010),
`https://www.advamed.org/sites/default/
`files/resource/30_10_11_10_2010_Study_
`CAgenda_makowerreportfinal.pdf ...................
`Manual of Patent Examining
`Procedure § 2636(I) ............................................
`Stephen Shapiro, et al., Supreme Court
`Practice (10th ed. 2013) .....................................
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office,
`Ex Parte Reexamination Filing Data
`(Sept. 30, 2018), https://www.uspto.gov/
`sites/default/files/documents/ex_
`parte_historical_stats_ roll_up.pdf .............. 6, 18, 23
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Inter
`Partes Reexamination Filing Data
`(Sept. 30, 2017), https://www.uspto.gov/
`sites/default/files/documents/inter_
`parte_historical_stats_roll_up.pdf ............ 6, 18, 23
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office,
`Motion To Amend Study (Mar. 2019),
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents-applica
`tion-process/patent-trial-and-appeal-
`board/motions-amend-study ........................... 8, 18
`
`14
`
`19
`
`18
`
`
`
`

`

`xiv
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`
`Page(s)
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office,
`Performance and Accountability
`Report: Fiscal Year 2012, https://www.
`uspto.gov/sites/default/files/about/strat
`plan/ar/USPTOFY2012PAR.pdf .....................
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office,
`Trial Statistics: IPR, PGR, CMB
` (Feb. 2020), https://www.uspto.gov/
`sites/ default/files/documents/Trial_
`Statistics_2020_02_29.pdf .................... 8, 15, 18, 23
`Saurabh Vishnubhakat, The Mixed
`Case for a PTAB Off-Ramp,
`18 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 514 (2019) .............
`
`15(cid:3)
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`————
`ARTHREX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.; ARTHROCARE CORP.;
`AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`Respondents.
`————
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
` to the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`————
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`————
`Arthrex, Inc., respectfully petitions for a writ of certi-
`orari to review the judgment of the United States Court
`of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in this case.
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The court of appeals’ opinion (App., infra, 1a-20a) is
`reported at 935 F.3d 1319. The Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board’s final written decision (App., infra, 21a-100a) is
`unreported.
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`The court of appeals entered its decision on August
`21, 2019. App., infra, 1a. The court denied rehearing and
`rehearing en banc on November 8, 2019. Id. at 101a.
`On January 24, 2020, the Chief Justice extended the time
`
`
`
`

`

`2
`to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to April 6, 2020.
`No. 19A817. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1254(1).
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
`PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`Relevant provisions of the U.S. Constitution; Title 35
`and Title 5 of the U.S. Code; Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat.
`3015 (1980); the Optional Inter Partes Reexamination
`Procedure Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-113, §§ 4601 et
`seq., 113 Stat. 1501A-567; and the Leahy-Smith America
`Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011); are
`set forth in the appendix. App., infra, 103a-141a.
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`The Patent Act strikes a “carefully crafted bargain” to
`encourage the development and disclosure of new tech-
`nologies. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats,
`Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 150-151 (1989). The Act offers inven-
`tors “the exclusive right to practice the invention for a
`period of years.” Id. at 151. In return, the inventor must
`“disclos[e]” how to make and use his invention, so others
`are “enabled without restriction to practice it and profit
`by its use” once that period expires. Ibid.
`In 2006, Arthrex fulfilled its side of that bargain when
`it sought a patent for a new suture anchor that allows
`surgeons to reattach soft tissue to bones more securely.
`Arthrex’s application described how to make and use its
`new suture anchor in detail. By disclosing its invention
`to the public, Arthrex surrendered its right to keep the
`invention secret in exchange for the protections the
`Patent Act promised at the time.
`Years later, in 2011, Congress altered the terms of
`that bargain in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`(“AIA”). That statute created a new mechanism for more
`
`
`
`

`

`3
`easily invalidating patents known as “inter partes review.”
`Congress authorized the use of that mechanism even
`where the inventor applied for the patent and disclosed
`the invention years earlier, before the statute was en-
`acted. The Patent Office invoked that procedure to
`revoke Arthrex’s patent claims, even though a jury had
`already found them valid in litigation.
`This petition challenges the constitutionality of apply-
`ing inter partes review retroactively to earlier patents—
`an issue this Court left open in Oil States Energy Ser-
`vices, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 138 S. Ct.
`1365, 1379 (2018). This Court is already considering a
`petition raising a similar challenge in Celgene Corp. v.
`Peter, No. 19-1074 (filed Feb. 26, 2020). In Celgene,
`however, the petitioner both applied for and received the
`patent before the AIA’s enactment. Celgene thus does
`not present the important category of cases like this one
`where the applicant disclosed its invention in reliance on
`the pre-AIA regime but received the patent afterward.
`The Court should grant review in both Celgene and this
`case, and hear the two together, so it can resolve the
`question in both contexts.
`This petition also presents a constitutional challenge
`to the appointment of the administrative patent judges
`(“APJs”) who adjudicate inter partes reviews. In another
`case between the same parties, the Federal Circuit held
`that APJs are improperly appointed. See Arthrex, Inc. v.
`Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019),
`reh’g denied (Mar. 23, 2020). But the court declined to
`apply that ruling in this case, where Arthrex had not
`raised the issue in its opening brief. Whether a court
`may refuse to address constitutional claims on forfeiture
`grounds despite an intervening change in law is another
`important and recurring issue. The Court should grant
`
`
`
`

`

`4
`review of that question as well—or at least hold the peti-
`tion for others presenting the same issue.
`STATEMENT
`I.(cid:3) STATUTORY BACKGROUND
`A.(cid:3) The Patent Act
`Under the Patent Act, the inventor of a “new and use-
`ful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
`matter” is entitled to obtain an exclusive right to practice
`the invention for a limited time. 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,
`154(a)(2). To obtain that right, the inventor must disclose
`his invention to the public by submitting a “written
`description of the invention, and of the manner and
`process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise,
`and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art
`* * * to make and use the same.” Id. § 112; see id.
`§ 122(b). That disclosure is the “quid pro quo of the right
`to exclude.” J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred
`Int’l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 142 (2001). The statute reflects
`“a carefully crafted bargain for encouraging the creation
`and disclosure of new, useful, and nonobvious advances in
`technology and design in return for the exclusive right to
`practice the invention.” Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder
`Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 150-151 (1989).
`A patent confers a property right on the owner.
`35 U.S.C. § 261. Anyone who “makes, uses, offers to sell,
`or sells any patented invention” without permission is an
`infringer liable for damages. Id. § 271(a). An accused
`infringer may defend itself by challenging the patent’s
`validity in court, but it must prove invalidity by clear and
`convincing evidence. See Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd.
`P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011).
`
`
`
`

`

`5
`B.(cid:3) Ex Parte Reexamination
`For most of this Nation’s history, the government had
`no power to revoke a patent without the owner’s con-
`sent—only a court could eliminate that property right.
`In 1980, however, Congress provided for ex parte re-
`examination of previously issued patents. See Pub. L. No.
`96-517, 94 Stat. 3015, 3015 (1980) (codified as amended at
`35 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq.). That procedure permits the
`Director of the Patent Office to reconsider a previously
`issued patent, on his own initiative or at the request of a
`third party, based on prior art that raises a “substantial
`new question of patentability.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 303(a), 304.
`Once instituted, ex parte reexaminations follow inquis-
`itorial procedures similar to those for initial examination
`of patent applications. 35 U.S.C. § 305. A patent exam-
`iner reviews the patent without further input from third
`parties. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.510(a), 1.550(g). The patent
`holder has a statutory right “to propose any amendment”
`to the challenged claims, so long as it does not enlarge
`their scope. 35 U.S.C. § 305. Patentability determinations
`are made under a preponderance-of-the-evidence stand-
`ard. In re Swanson, 540 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`The statute applied to patents then in force or issued
`thereafter. Pub. L. No. 96-517, § 8(b), 94 Stat. at 3027.
`C.(cid:3) Inter Partes Reexamination
`In 1999, Congress supplemented that regime with in-
`ter partes reexamination. See Optional Inter Partes
`Reexamination Procedure Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-
`113, §§ 4601 et seq., 113 Stat. 1501A-567 (formerly codi-
`fied at 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq.). Inter partes reexamina-
`tion was another inquisitorial process with “slightly
`more” third-party participation. SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348, 1353 (2018).
`
`
`
`

`

`6
`As with ex parte reexaminations, the Director could
`institute an inter partes reexamination based on prior art
`raising a “substantial new question of patentability.” 35
`U.S.C. § 312(a) (2006). Once again, the reexamination
`generally followed the “procedures established for initial
`examination.” Id. § 314(a). Patent examiners determined
`whether claims were patentable under a preponderance-
`of-the-evidence standard. See Swanson, 540 F.3d at
`1377. Patent owners could still “propose any amend-
`ment” that did not expand the scope of the claims. 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a) (2006). The third party could “participate
`in a limited manner” by filing responses and appealing an
`examiner’s decision. Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v.
`Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365, 1371 (2018);
`see 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(b), 315(b) (2006).
`Congress expressly declined to apply inter partes re-
`examination retroactively. The statute applies only to
`“patent[s] that issue[ ] from an original application filed
`in the United States on or after th[e] date” of enactment.
`Pub. L. No. 106-113, § 4608(a), 113 Stat. at 1501A-572.
`The Patent Office has reconsidered a number of pat-
`ents under the two reexamination regimes, but invalidated
`only a small fraction. In 88% of ex parte reexaminations,
`patents survived with at least some claims. See U.S.
`Patent & Trademark Office, Ex Parte Reexamination
`Filing Data (Sept. 30, 2018), https://www.uspto.gov/
`sites/default/files/documents/ex_parte_historical_stats_
`roll_up.pdf. In inter partes reexaminations, the survival
`rate was 66%. See U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Inter
`Partes Reexamination Filing Data (Sept. 30, 2017),
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/inter
`_parte_historical_stats_roll_up.pdf. Most patents required
`only amendments. See Gregory Dolin & Irina Manta, Tak-
`ing Patents, 73 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 719, 758-759 (2016).
`
`
`
`

`

`7
`D.(cid:3) Inter Partes Review
`In 2011, Congress dramatically altered that landscape
`by enacting the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`(“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). Con-
`gress felt that patents were “too difficult to challenge.”
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 39 (2011). It therefore re-
`placed inter partes reexamination with new procedures,
`including “inter partes review.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq.
`Any third party may seek inter partes review by filing
`a petition with the Patent Office. 35 U.S.C. § 311. The
`Director determines whether there is a “reasonable like-
`lihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged.” Id. §314(a). Conse-
`quently, unlike in reexaminations, the Director need not
`find a “new” question of patentability. Id. § 325(d). The
`statute permits inter partes review even where the peti-
`tioner is a defendant in ongoing infringement litigation,
`so long as it files the petition within the first year of liti-
`gation. Id. § 315(b).
`Once instituted, inter partes review follows a proce-
`dure markedly different from reexamination. The stat-
`ute provides for discovery, adversarial briefing, and con-
`tested hearings, with the challenger participating at
`every stage. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a). Cases proceed, not
`before patent examiners, but before a specialized adjudi-
`cative body: a Patent Trial and Appeal Board composed
`largely of administrative patent judges appointed by the
`Secretary of Commerce. Id. § 316(c); id. § 6(a), (b)(4).
`Inter partes review is thus a “party-directed, adversarial”
`process that “mimics civil litigation,” rather than the
`“agency-led, inquisitorial” process for reexaminations.
`SAS Inst., 138 S. Ct. at 1352, 1355. Even so, a petitioner
`need only establish unpatentability by a “preponderance
`of the evidence.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).
`
`
`
`

`

`8
`While patent owners had broad rights to amend their
`claims in reexamination, inter partes review sharply cur-
`tails those rights. Patent owners must request permis-
`sion to amend. 35 U.S.C. § 316(d)(1). They normally may
`do so only once, id., and only early in the proceedings, 37
`C.F.R. § 42.121(a). The Patent Office has almost always
`denied leave to amend—nearly 90% of the time. U.S. Pat-
`ent & Trademark Office, Motion To Amend Study 7 (Mar.
`2019), https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/
`patent-trial-and-appeal-board/motions-amend-study.
`At the end of an inter partes review, the Board issues
`a final written decision. 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). The parties
`can appeal directly to the Federal Circuit. Id. § 319. No
`statute permits the Director to review Board decisions.
`And according to the statute, Board members may be re-
`moved “only for such cause as will promote the efficiency
`of the service.” 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a); see 35 U.S.C. § 3(c).
`While Congress declined to apply inter partes reexam-
`ination retroactively, it took the opposite approach for
`inter partes review. The new procedure applies “to any
`pa