In 2012, Congress established certain processes in the Patent Office under which a third party could challenge the validity of issued patents. One of these processes, known as inter partes review (IPR), has been widely used. IPRs are typically filed by the defendant/accused infringer in a concurrently pending federal patent infringement case. Because the IPR can result in the targeted patent claims being cancelled, there is the possibility that the concurrently pending federal litigation will be resolved (either through judgment or settlement). According to the USPTO's statistics, over 11,000 petitions for IPR have been filed since enactment in 2012.

With few exceptions, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown little interest in constitutional challenges to the process. Now, the Supreme Court will decide if the specialized tribunals that conduct IPRs themselves are constitutional. The case turns on whether administrative patent judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were properly appointed in the first place.  This depends on whether they are "inferior officers" or are "principal officers" within the meaning of the Constitution. The decision could have a broad impact on the patent system.