In a complex decision, the Court ruled that these judges were considered "principal officers" under the Appointments Clause, normally subject to appointment through the US President and the US Senate, but to remedy the matter, the Court ruled that the constitutional issue is resolved by allowing the PTAB decisions to be subject to review by the appropriately-appointed Director of the Patent Office.

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, found the APJs were principal officers with "unreviewable authority" under the Appointments Clause, and thus their appointment outside of the President and Senate was unconstitutional.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion dissenting on the issue of APJs under the Appointments Clause, but concurring on the remedy judgement, joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

[1] The Court further ruled that prior PTAB decisions were not overruled but did allow such cases to be subject to the same review by the patent office director.

The fact that this line places administrative patent judges on the side of ambassadors, Supreme Court justices and department heads suggests that something is not quite right.

"[2] Justice Gorsuch wrote separately to dissent on the remedy, stating he would have turned to Congress to determine how to resolve the matter through their preferred system.