Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Patent examiner

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a federal administrative adjudicator?
Federal administrative adjudicators are federal government officials who preside over administrative hearings and proceedings in a process called adjudication. These officials can be divided into two categories: administrative law judges (ALJs) and non-ALJ adjudicators, sometimes referred to as administrative judges (AJs). Although many of these officials have the word judge in their job title, administrative adjudicators are part of the executive rather than the judicial branch. They are not judges as described in Article III of the Constitution.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.

Patent examiners are a type of federal administrative adjudicator sometimes collectively referred to as administrative judges, or non-ALJ adjudicators. Patent examiners are employed by the Patent and Trademark Office at the U.S. Department of Commerce and preside over special classes of administrative adjudication proceedings pertaining to the issuance of patents.[1]

Background

See also: Federal administrative adjudicators

Patent examiners are a type of federal administrative adjudicator sometimes collectively referred to as administrative judges, or non-ALJ adjudicators. Patent examiners preside over special classes of adjudication proceedings within the Patent and Trademark Office of the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) pertaining to the issuance of patents. They have the authority to conduct hearings, make findings, and issue decisions in patent-related cases. Patent examiners generally preside over adjudication proceedings in panels of three.[2][3]

Unlike other executive agencies, the director of the DOC's Patent and Trademark Office does not have final reviewing authority over patent examiner decisions. This structure allows for patent examiners to issue final decisions, which can then be appealed to the DOC's Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hears the majority of patent examiner decisions that are later appealed to the federal courts.[3][4]

Though patent examiners are a type of administrative judge, they are part of the executive rather than the judicial branch. They are not judges as described in Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

Non-ALJ adjudicators

Non-ALJ adjudicators are distinct from administrative law judges (ALJs). Unlike ALJs, non-ALJ adjudicators are not covered by the Administrative Procedure Act and their positions are not standardized across the government. Their work, titles, qualifications, and pay vary substantially. Non-ALJs preside over informal adjudication proceedings, which may involve a hearing or a written process. Non-ALJs conduct the majority of federal agency adjudication proceedings.[1]

There were more than 10,000 non-ALJ adjudicators working at various federal agencies as of February 2018, the most recent year for which comprehensive data was available at the time of this article's last update in March 2024, including the 7,856 patent examiners employed by the Patent and Trademark Office. The other largest employers of non-ALJs at the time were the Internal Revenue Service (714 non-ALJs), the Department of Veterans Affairs (630 non-ALJs), the National Labor Relations Board (600 non-ALJs), and the U.S. Department of Justice (326 non-ALJs).[1]

Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group

See also: Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group

Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in April 2018 that upheld the validity of inter partes review proceedings adjudicated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Inter partes review proceedings are requested by an interested party to determine the validity of an existing patent. The Supreme Court held that inter parte review does not violate Article III of the U.S. Constitution because it functions as part and parcel of the right to grant patents, which falls within the public rights doctrine. Click here to read more about the case.[5]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Administrative Conference of the United States, "Non-ALJ Adjudicators in Federal Agencies: Status, Selection, Oversight, and Removal," February 14, 2018
  2. ↑ U.S. Department of Justice, "BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS," accessed April 1, 2025
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 The Regulatory Review, "Headless Agency Adjudication at the Patent Office," accessed April 1, 2025
  4. ↑ U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, "Patent Trial and Appeal Board," accessed April 1, 2025
  5. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group Opinion," April 24, 2018
v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Patent_examiner&oldid=10326801"