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

iphone 12 5g

Apple's $502M Optis Patent Case Heads to UK Supreme Court

Tuesday June 30, 2026 7:45 am PDT by
Apple will try to convince the UK Supreme Court this week to throw out a $502 million judgment in favor of patent holder Optis Wireless. As reported in the Financial Times, the UK Supreme Court this week takes up a dispute that has stretched on since 2019 in both U.S. and UK courts, when Optis first accused iPhones, iPads, and LTE-equipped Apple Watch models of infringing patents covering 4G ...
iPhone 18 Pro and Pro Max Feature

'Apple Upgrade' Program Reportedly Launching Next Week

Tuesday July 21, 2026 8:30 am PDT by
Apple and Klarna are partnering on a new "Apple Upgrade" leasing program set to launch in the U.S. on Tuesday, July 28, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. The program will allow you to finance most iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple Watch models, with a 24-month term for iPhones and Apple Watches and a 36-month term for iPads and Macs. Customers will be able to pay off the device early during...
iPhone 18 Pro Deep Red Feature

iPhone 18 Pro Launching in Two Months With These 12 New Features

Friday July 17, 2026 10:39 am PDT by
It is now mid-July, and that means the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max are now just two months away. The devices are expected to look similar to the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max, but there will still be many year-over-year changes, with rumored features including a smaller Dynamic Island, 5G via satellite, and more. Apple is expected to unveil the iPhone 18 Pro, iPhone 18 Pro Max, ...

Top Rated Comments

70 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
70 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)
70 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)
70 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)
70 months ago
Google and Apple anticompetitive, surely not?
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
cmaier Avatar
70 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)