Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 · Administrative Law
Administrative Lawjudicial review of agency factfindingPatent and Trademark OfficeAdministrative Procedure ActAPA5 U.S.C. § 7065 U.S.C. § 559PTO
Facts
Respondents sought a patent on a method for increasing computer security. A PTO examiner concluded the method was obvious in light of prior art, and the PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences upheld that denial. In the Federal Circuit, a panel treated the content of the prior art as a question of fact and held the PTO's factual finding clearly erroneous. The dispute before the Supreme Court concerned the standard the Federal Circuit must use when reviewing PTO findings of fact.
Issue
When the Federal Circuit reviews findings of fact made by the Patent and Trademark Office, must it apply the judicial review framework in APA § 706, or may it instead use the stricter court/court clearly erroneous standard on the theory that patent review had an established pre-APA exception preserved by APA § 559?
Rule
Because the PTO is an agency subject to the APA and its factfinding constitutes agency action, a reviewing court must apply the APA's court/agency standards in § 706 unless a contrary additional requirement is clearly recognized by law under § 559. A claimed grandfathered exception to APA uniformity must be clear, and ambiguous pre-APA practice does not suffice.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
The Federal Renewable Fuels Bureau denied Nora Patel's permit application after finding, based on technical studies in the administrative record, that her proposed facility in Toledo, Ohio would not meet statutory efficiency thresholds. On direct review, the Court of Appeals for the Meridian Circuit says it will overturn the bureau's factual findings if they are "clearly erroneous" because that is the standard it usually applies to trial judges.
Which is the best analysis of the court's review standard?
Explanation. Where the decisionmaker is an agency, the challenged determination is factual, and it constitutes agency action, review proceeds under APA § 706 absent a valid exception. The majority distinguished court/agency review from court/court review and rejected substituting Rule 52(a)'s clearly erroneous standard merely because that standard is used for district-court factfinding.