Supreme Court to Determine if Patent Appeal Board Used by Apple is Unconstitutional - MacRumors
Skip to Content

Supreme Court to Determine if Patent Appeal Board Used by Apple is Unconstitutional

The U.S. Supreme Court will today hear arguments about whether the systems used by technology companies, including Apple and Google, to invalidate patents and see off litigation are unconstitutional (via Bloomberg).

United States Supreme Court Building

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), set up by Congress in 2011, has invalidated more than 2,000 patents. Apple is the single biggest user of the patent review board, having successfully attacked as many as 200 patents through it, and has said that it relies on "Congress's promise of a fair and efficient forum to challenge what often prove to be woefully weak patents that should not have issued in the first instance." Other users of the PTAB include Intel, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, and Samsung.

The PTAB has been dubbed a "death squad" due to its tendency to toss out patents, and some smaller inventors believe that the board has become an anticompetitive tool for large companies. It is alleged that the PTAB's judges may be serving in violation of the Constitution due to the amount of power they wield.

According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which handles most patent disputes, PTAB judges have important enough powers that they should be appointed directly by the president and confirmed by the Senate as "principal officers."

On the other hand, the Justice Department is urging the Supreme Court to leave the current system in place, saying that patent judges are "inferior officers" who do not need to be presidential appointees.

The Supreme Court could go as far as to bar the board from continuing to review and invalidate patents until changes to the appointment system are made, or shut down the PTAB entirely, forcing Congress to create a new board that more clearly caters to the needs of smaller inventors and patent owners. A ruling against the board could mean that hundreds of patent cases would have to be reconsidered, which could have considerable ramifications for companies that have used it successfully.

The PTAB survived a challenge at the Supreme Court in 2018, in a ruling which found that the panel was not unconstitutionally wielding powers that belong to the courts, but amid increasing scrutiny on the power of big tech companies and antitrust cases, there is a chance that things may pan out differently this time.

Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Popular Stories

Apple Event Logo

Apple's Next Era Begins September 1

Thursday May 7, 2026 10:36 am PDT by
Apple recently announced that Tim Cook will be stepping down as CEO later this year, after 15 years of leading the company. Effective September 1, Apple's hardware engineering chief John Ternus will become the company's next CEO, while Cook will become executive chairman of Apple's board of directors. In his new role, Apple said Cook will assist with "certain aspects" of the company,...
Instagram Feature 2

PSA: Instagram Encrypted Messaging Ends on Friday, May 8

Tuesday May 5, 2026 8:24 am PDT by
Instagram will remove end-to-end encryption for direct messages between users from May 8, 2026. When the date comes around, Meta will potentially be able to see the contents of all messages between users on the social media platform. Encrypting messages has been an optional feature in Instagram since 2023, but in March of this year the social media platform quietly updated a help page to say ...
Apple Event Logo

Apple Just Released a New Accessory

Monday May 4, 2026 8:13 am PDT by
Apple today released a new Pride Edition Sport Loop for the Apple Watch. The band features a rainbow design with 11 colors of woven nylon yarns. The new Pride Edition Sport Loop is available to order now on Apple.com and in the Apple Store app in 40mm, 42mm, and 46mm sizes, and it will be available at Apple Store locations starting later this week. In the U.S., the band costs $49. There...

Top Rated Comments

68 months ago
Not sure which is better, but I do know that making the appointment political has its own set of problems.
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
PinkyMacGodess Avatar
68 months ago
A board that seeks to eliminate the power of patent trolls is seeing their future clouded? Who couldn't see that happening.

It'd be like someone writing a bill to end hedge funds, the headwind would be worse than the 'wind' speed on Neptune ('https://www.weather.gov/fsd/neptune')! People from everywhere would be crawling out from under rocks not discovered yet to try to end that legislation. Or ending 'dark money' in politics. It used to be Social Security as the untouchable ;third rail' of politics, and now it's the money flow into politics. With the richest Congress in American history.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
68 months ago
would it be too much to ask to have Congress do its job and fix the mess that has become patents? Oh, when I say it out loud, it does sound absurd
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
68 months ago
We need the patent mess fixed.

Inventors of new and original works deserve compensation.

Obvious processes simply done on computer should not be used by trolls.

The patent shouldn’t stifle innovation (wait till Covid dust settles and the vaccine companies go after each other).

There needs to be a way to effectively penalize the people who try to abuse the system, whether that is trolling with lame patents or deep pockets trying to outspend small patent
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
68 months ago
Google and Apple anticompetitive, surely not?
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
cmaier Avatar
68 months ago
There have been multiple attacks on the constitutionality of IPR proceedings, and so far it’s survived. Even if it were ruled unconstitutional, the most likely result would be a delay while the administrative law judges are reappointed. But the most likely result is probably that they find that who appoints the judges doesn’t matter so long as the head of the USPTO, who is appointed by the executive branch, has final authority. Just guessing, of course.
Score: 2 Votes (Like | Disagree)