Supreme Court to Determine if Patent Appeal Board Used by Apple is Unconstitutional - MacRumorsOpen MenuShow RoundupsShow Forums menuVisit ForumsOpen Sidebar
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 Wallet

iOS 27 Will Add Two New Apple Wallet Features to Your iPhone

Monday June 1, 2026 12:15 pm PDT by
Apple is set to unveil iOS 27 during its WWDC 2026 keynote on Monday, June 8, and the update will reportedly include two new Apple Wallet features. First, iOS 27 will reportedly let users create their own digital passes by scanning items like movie tickets, concert passes, and gym membership cards. Many apps already offer Apple Wallet passes, but now users will be able to create a custom...
Dynamic Island iPhone 18 Pro Feature

iPhone 18 Pro Battery Capacities Allegedly Leaked

Tuesday June 2, 2026 1:54 am PDT by
Battery capacities for Apple's upcoming iPhone 18 Pro have allegedly surfaced, and the numbers suggest only a modest increase over the iPhone 17 Pro. According to prolific Weibo-based leaker Digital Chat Station, Apple is testing the iPhone 18 Pro with different battery capacities for the China and U.S. versions of the device, similar to last year's iPhone 17 Pro models. The Chinese model is ...
macOS 27 on MacBook Pro

Apple Says macOS 27 Won't Be Compatible With These Macs

Wednesday June 3, 2026 8:29 am PDT by
During WWDC 2025, Apple revealed that macOS 26 Tahoe would be the final major macOS version for Intel-based Macs. macOS 27 will be compatible with Apple silicon Macs only, meaning that you will need a Mac with an M-series chip or a MacBook Neo with an A18 Pro chip in order to install the software update. Apple will unveil macOS 27 during its WWDC 2026 keynote this Monday, June 8, and the...

Top Rated Comments

69 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
69 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)
69 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)
69 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)
69 months ago
Google and Apple anticompetitive, surely not?
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
cmaier Avatar
69 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)