No. ________ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ADIDAS AG, Petitioner, v. NIKE, INC., Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MITCHELL G. STOCKWELL ADAM H. CHARNES KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Counsel of Record 1100 Peachtree Street KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Suite 2800 2001 Ross Avenue Atlanta, GA 30309 Suite 4400 (404) 815-6500 Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 922-7106 [email protected] Attorneys for Petitioner QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are principal officers who must be appointed by the President with the Senate’s advice and consent, or “inferior Officers” whose appointment Congress has permissibly vested in a department head. 2. Whether, if administrative patent judges are principal officers, the court of appeals properly cured any Appointments Clause defect in the current statutory scheme prospectively by severing the application of 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) to those judges. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS adidas AG was petitioner in the proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and appellant in the court of appeals. Nike, Inc. was the patent owner in proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the appellee in the court of appeals. iii RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Petitioner adidas AG has no parent or publicly held company owning 10% or more of its stock. iv RELATED CASES • adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., No. 2018-1180, -1181, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judgment Entered July 2, 2018. • adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., No. 2019-1787, -1788, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judgment Entered June 25, 2020. v TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................................................................................ i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ................................................................................... ii RULE 29.6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................................... iii RELATED CASES ........................................................................................................... iv PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ....................................................................... 1 OPINIONS BELOW .......................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................ 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................................. 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE............................................................................................ 2 A. The Arthrex Decision and Subsequent Remands .............................................. 2 B. This Court’s Grant of Certiorari ..................................................................... 4 C. The Proceedings in this Matter ....................................................................... 6 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION .................................................................... 7 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 11 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 894 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................ 1 adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................ 1 adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., No. IPR2016-00921, 2017 WL 4764802 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2017) ...................................... 1 adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., No. IPR2016-00921, 2019 WL 764060 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019) ........................................ 1 adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., No. IPR2016-00922, 2017 WL 4772296 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2017) ...................................... 1 adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., No. IPR2016-00922, 2019 WL 764425 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019) ........................................ 1 Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................................. passim Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (P.T.A.B. May 1, 2020) ..................................................... 4 Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 19-1458 (June 30, 2020) ............................................................................. 5, 6, 7, 11 Bedgear, LLC v. Fredman Bros. Furniture Co., 779 F. App’x 748 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................... 3 Curtis Publ’g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) ..................................................................................................... 10 Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 941 F.3d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................ 4 Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651 (1997) ............................................................................................... 4, 5, 7 Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, 812 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................ 3 Freytag v. Comm’r, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) ..................................................................................................... 10 vii Harper v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993) ....................................................................................................... 10 PHH Corp. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 839 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016), rev’d en banc, 881 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ................................................................... 10 SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ................................................................................................ 1, 7 Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 771 F. App’x 493 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................... 3 United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434 (July 24, 2020) .............................................................................. 5, 7, 8, 11 United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1434, 2020 WL 3545866 (June 25, 2020) .............................................................. 5 United States v. Arthrex, Inc., No. 19-1452 (July 24, 2020) .............................................................................. 5, 7, 8, 11 Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972) ......................................................................................................... 9 Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975) ..................................................................................................... 8, 9 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ........................................................................................................... 2 35 U.S.C. § 6(a) ................................................................................................................. 4 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) ......................................................................................................... 3, 8 Other Authorities Boardside Chat: New Developments, USPTO.gov (Jun. 11, 2020), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PTAB_boardside_chat_ne w_trial_stats_sas_and_operational_faqs_06_11_2020.pdf .................................................. 9 Trial Statistics IPR, PGR, CBM, USPTO.gov, at 6 (Sept. 2020), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/trial_statistics_20200930.p df ................................................................................................................................. 9 viii U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2 ........................................................................................... 2, 4 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner adidas AG respectfully requests a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On October 13, 2020, this Court granted the petitions for certiorari in Nos. 2018-2140, 19-1452, and 19-1458, all limited to Questions 1 and 2 as set forth in the July 22, 2020 Memorandum for the United States. As explained further below, adidas respectfully submits that this petition should be held pending the disposition of the writs of certiorari (Nos. 19-1434, 19-1452, and 19-1458) that have been granted to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). OPINIONS BELOW The June 25, 2020, opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, is published at adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., 963 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and addresses case nos. 2019-1787, 2019-1788. It is reprinted in the Appendix to the Petition (“App.”) at App. A. The initial final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) are reprinted at App. E & F and were reported at adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., No. IPR2016-00922, 2017 WL 4772296 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2017); adidas AG v. Nike, Inc., No. IPR2016-00921, 2017 WL 4764802 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 2017). Following this Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), the Federal Circuit remanded to address non-instituted