来源：《美联社新闻》
原文刊登日期：2021年6月21日
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress erred when it set up a board to oversee patent disputes by failing to make the judges properly accountable to the president.
美国最高法院周一裁定，国会在设立一个监督专利纠纷的委员会时，未能使法官对总统适当负责，国会的做法是错误的。
Five conservative justices agreed that Congress had erred, but both conservative and liberal justices agreed on the fix. They concluded that a portion of federal law related to how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board functions can’t be enforced. The result of the court’s action is that the director of the Patent and Trademark Office can review and reverse any decisions made by the board’s judges. The director is nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate.
五名保守派大法官一致认为国会犯了错误，但保守派和自由派大法官都同意纠正错误。他们得出的结论是，与专利审判和上诉委员会的职能有关的部分联邦法律无法执行。最高法院判决的结果是，专利和商标局局长可以审查和推翻专利审判和上诉委员会法官做出的任何决定。专利和商标局局长由总统提名，并经参议院确认。
The case before the justices involved more than 200 administrative patent judges who make up the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and issue hundreds of decisions every year. The case is of particular importance to patent holders and inventors including major technology companies.
大法官审理的案件涉及由200多名专利行政法官组成的专利审判和上诉委员会，该委员会每年发布数百项裁决。该案件对专利持有人和发明人（包括主要技术公司）特别重要。
The question for the court had to do with whether Congress violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause in the way it set up the board. The board’s judges are not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate but instead appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.
最高法院面临的问题是，国会设立专利审判和上诉委员会的方式是否违反了宪法的任命条款。该委员会的法官不是由总统任命并由参议院批准，而是由商务部长任命。
Both the Biden administration and the Trump administration had told the justices that there was no issue with the system Congress set up.
拜登政府和特朗普政府都告诉大法官，国会设立的制度没有问题。
The specific case the justices ruled in involves medical device company Arthrex. The Naples, Florida-based company patented a surgical device for reattaching soft tissue to bone. Arthrex sued a British company, Smith & Nephew, for patent infringement in 2015. The companies ultimately settled, but Smith & Nephew challenged Arthrex’s patent.
大法官们裁定的具体案件涉及医疗器械公司Arthrex。这家位于佛罗里达州那不勒斯的公司为一种将软组织重新附着到骨骼上的手术装置申请了专利。2015年，Arthrex起诉英国公司施乐辉侵犯专利。两家公司最终和解，但施乐辉对Arthrex的专利提出质疑。
During that challenge before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a panel of three administrative patent judges sided with Smith & Nephew and found Arthrex’s claims unpatentable. Arthrex appealed, arguing the judges were unconstitutionally appointed, and a federal appeals court agreed.
在专利审判和上诉委员会的质询过程中，一个由三名行政专利法官组成的小组站在了施乐辉一边，认为Arthrex的权利主张不具有专利资格。Arthrex提出上诉，认为这些法官的任命是违反宪法的，联邦上诉法院同意了这一说法。
As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, the case will be sent back and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s acting director can decide whether to rehear the petition filed by Smith & Nephew.
根据最高法院的判决，该案件将被发回，专利审判和上诉委员会的代理主任可以决定是否重新审理施乐辉提交的申请。