Insights
Publications

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Inter Partes Review of Issued Patents

7/24/2018 Articles

In 2012, Congress created a new procedure that allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to conduct a litigation-like procedure to review and potentially cancel patents. This procedure - inter partes review (“IPR”) - has been highly unpopular with patent holders who challenged the constitutionality of the system. One of those challenges made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which recently addressed the issue in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC

The Decision

Oil States threatened to permanently end IPRs. The challenge by Oil States, which owned the particular patent invalidated through an IPR proceeding, asserted that its patent rights had been extinguished in violation of Article III and the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court rejected the constitutional challenge, but expressly left open other constitutional arguments ensuring that this is not the final word on the issue.

The Court noted that the separation of powers question under Article III is commonly resolved based on a distinction between “private” rights, which are adjudicated by an Article III court (i.e., a federal district court), and “public” rights, which can be adjudicated by a government agency. The Court recognized that its precedent addressing “public” vs. “private” rights has not drawn a clear distinction, but concluded that IPR “falls squarely within the public rights doctrine.” Having resolved that patents are a “public” right, the Court had little trouble concluding that IPRs do not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment.

Impact

The Oil States decision effectively upholds the status quo permitting the IPR process to continue as it currently exists. The decision may nevertheless provide impetus for changes to the IPR system. Many of the amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court emphasized perceived problems with the existing procedure. Already, the Patent Office has announced its intent to change the IPR claim construction standard that patent holders have argued is currently unfair, and we may see additional changes in the coming months based on public criticism aired in the Oil States briefing.

In addition, patent holders moved quickly to take advantage of language in the Oil States decision suggesting that other constitutional arguments are not foreclosed. The Court went out of its way to state that the Oil States decision addresses only the precise issues raised in the case and that it does not address potential challenges under the Due Process or Takings Clauses. Patent holders have already filed a new class-action lawsuit seeking more than a hundred million dollars in damages for patents that have been cancelled through IPR.

The Oil States decision upheld the constitutionality of IPRs, but it did not end the disputes over this new procedure.

Firm Highlights

Publication

How Defense Strategies Can Go Awry When Pursuing Concurrent PTAB Relief in Financial Services Patent Litigation

United States Automobile Association (USAA), a financial services company that provides insurance, banking, investment, and retirement products and services for members of the military and their families, filed a surprising patent infringement complaint against Wells Fargo...

Read More
Publication

Securing Against Trade Secret Pitfalls and Dangers Arising From Employee Mobility Situations

Published on ACCDocket.com . By Walt Norfleet, Smiths Group plc and Eugene Y. Mar, Farella Braun + Martel LLP Picture this: Your company is in a highly competitive industry with several leading players heavily supported...

Read More
News

Benchmark California 2020 Ranks Farella Among Top Litigation Firms

Doug Young named among Top 20 Trial Lawyers in California SAN FRANCISCO, October 16, 2019: Farella Braun + Martel continues to be ranked among the top litigation firms by Benchmark California 2020, a guide...

Read More
Publication

Practices to Protect Trade Secrets in Failed Acquisitions and Customer Relationships

Published on  ACCDocket.com . By Walt Norfleet, Smiths Group plc and Eugene Y. Mar, Farella Braun + Martel LLP In part one of this three-part series on best practices for protecting trade secrets and guarding...

Read More
News

Jeff Fisher Named Among California’s 2019 Top Trade Secrets Lawyers by the Daily Journal

SAN FRANCISCO, October 9, 2019: Farella Braun + Martel is proud to announce that Jeffrey M. Fisher was named among the “Top Trade Secrets Lawyers” in California by the Daily Journal . Fisher has...

Read More
Publication

Facebook Suspends Apps That Scrape Data From Its Platform Following Cambridge Analytica Scandal

Read More
News

Farella Braun + Martel Ranked Among “Best Law Firms” by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers

Read More
Publication

Who 'Owns' a Secret? Whether Trade Secret Licensees Have Standing to Sue in California

If the eye-popping damages awards in several recent lawsuits are any indication, companies are increasingly coming to see their private information as one of their most valuable assets—and California juries apparently agree. For example...

Read More
Publication

What California’s New Security Law Means to Your Business

Commonsense IoT security steps that startups and small business should consider to comply with California’s new law California recently enacted a new law, Senate Bill 327, that requires companies that make Internet of Things...

Read More