Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc., a Tennessee Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Instromedix, Inc., an Oregon Corporation, Cross-Appellant

This case concerns the constitutionality of section 636(c) of the Magistrates Act which allows magistrates, with consent of the parties to the litigation, to conduct civil trials and enter judgments. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c) (Supp. V 1981). Because this procedure offends article III of the Constitution, we reverse and remand for de novo review by the district court.

FACTS

Pacemaker Diagnostic Clinic of America, Inc. charged Instromedix, Inc. with infringement of a patent. Instromedix denied infringement and alleged that the patent was invalid. The parties consented to have the case tried by a magistrate sitting without a jury. The magistrate found the patent valid, but not infringed. Both parties appealed to this court. We raised the issue of the magistrate’s jurisdiction sua sponte because of the possible unconstitutionality of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c), which empowered the magistrate to enter judgment in this case. Because we hold that the provision is unconstitutional, we do not reach the merits of the patent issues. DISCUSSION

I.

Background

Article III of the United States Constitution vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may…