USPTO implementation of an interim Director review process following Arthrex | USPTO
`
`USPTO implementation of an interim
`Director review process following
`Arthrex
`
`This webpage houses useful information regarding the implementation of an interim Director review process
`in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings following Arthrex.  
`Background
`On June , , the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. -, -,
`-, WL , addressing the Constitution’s appointments clause as it relates to PTAB administrative
`patent judges (APJs). The court considered whether APJs are “principal officers” who must be appointed by the
`President with the Senate’s advice and consent, or, as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the
`U.S. government argued, whether they are “inferior officers” who can be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.  
`Key takeaways of Arthrex decision
`n its decision, the Supreme Court provided a new, tailored remedy to ensure that APJs function as inferior officers.
`Specifically, the court held “that U.S.C. § (c) is unenforceable as applied to the Director insofar as it prevents the
`Director from reviewing the decisions of the PTAB on his own. The Director may engage in such review and reach his
`own decision.” Thus, Arthrex provides the Director authority to unilaterally review a PTAB final decision in an inter
`partes review by rehearing.  
`nterim process for Director review following Arthrex
`The Office has implemented an interim procedure for a Director review, consistent with the Arthrex decision. n this
`interim procedure, such a review may be initiated sua sponte by the Director or requested by a party to a PTAB
`proceeding. Parties may request Director review of a final written decision in an inter parties review or a post-grant
`review by concurrently () entering a Request for Rehearing by the Director into PTAB EE and () submitting a
`notification of the Request for Rehearing by the Director to the Office by email to
`Director PTABDecision Review@uspto.gov (mailto:Director PTABDecision Review@uspto.gov), copying counsel
`for all parties by email.   
`For more details on the interim Director review process, please see Arthrex As (/patents/patent-trial-and-
`appeal-board/procedures/arthrex-qas). 
`Other information regarding the interim Director review process
`The PTAB is hosting a “Boardside Chat” webinar (/about-us/events/learn-about-interim-director-review-process-
`following-us-v-arthrex-inc) on Thursday, July , , at am ET to discuss the Arthrex decision, explain the interim
`procedure for Director review of PTAB decisions, and answer questions.
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/uspto-implementation-interim-director-review
`
`1/2
`
`Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, et al. Exhibit 1035, p. 1 of 2
`
`

`

`USPTO implementation of an interim Director review process following Arthrex | USPTO
`f parties have any questions about the impact of the Arthrex decision on PTAB proceedings, the parties may contact
`the Board at trials@uspto.gov (mailto:Trials@uspto.gov).
`The USPTO also seeks feedback on the interim Director review process. Suggestions are welcome and may be
`submitted to Director_Review_Suggestions@uspto.gov (mailto:Director_Review_Suggestions@uspto.gov). 
` 
`
`Submit feedback about this page to Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
`Published on: Jun , : AM EDT
`Last Modified: Jun , : PM EDT
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/patents/patent-trial-and-appeal-board/procedures/uspto-implementation-interim-director-review
`
`2/2
`
`Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, et al. Exhibit 1035, p. 2 of 2
`
`