The Supreme Court Rules that Patents are a “Public Right”:  A Review of Oil States v. Greene’s Energy Group

by Workman Nydegger
Contact

Workman Nydegger

Just last week, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 584 U.S. 2018) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf).

In sum, the Supreme Court considers patents to be a “public right,” and consequently that reviewing and revoking patents via administrative courts in the Inter Partes Review System is a valid exercise of Congressional authority.

Case Review

Prior to the Supreme Court appeal, Oil States found itself in the increasingly common situation where a patentee obtains a positive verdict in the traditional court system, only to find that the USPTO’s administrative court determined the same patent to be invalid.

Oil States argued that its patent claims should be reinstated because the USPTO’s administrative Inter Partes Review (IPR) system for invalidating a patent is unconstitutional either under Article III of the U.S. Constitution or under the 7th Amendment.  The thrust of Oil State’s argument was that, once issued, patents are private property and not a “public right.”  Hence, when a party elects on its own to challenge the patent through an administrative agency (executive branch of government) rather than through the judicial branch (Article III courts), the administrative agency effectively usurps authority not granted to it under the Constitution.

There are a few distinctions between courts in the judicial branch and those in the other branches, like the executive branch.  In short, Article III federal courts: (i) provide judges that have life tenure so they can resist political influence, and (ii) and provide the right to a jury trial.  By contrast, administrative courts (e.g., Article I and IV courts): (i) provide administrative law judges that are paid and influenced by political officials, and (ii) do not provide for a jury trial.  (As an example, a company would sue another company about a patent infringement in an Article III court in the judicial branch and elect to use a jury, but might challenge an agency ruling through a non-Article III court in the executive branch, without the right to a jury.)

In other words, if patents are not a “public right,” the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) arguably would not have had the authority to invalidate Oil States’ patent.  Oil States would have had the right to object to the PTAB as the choice of forum, and removed the dispute to an Article III court.

The Supreme Court, however, clarified that patents are a “public right,” specifically a “public franchise.”  A public franchise is a government grant of a right to be the exclusive provider within a particular market.  The Supreme Court reasoned that patents represent a right “arising between the government and others,” quoting Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U.S. 438, 451 (1929).

The Supreme Court further noted that public rights do not require judicial branch (Article III) review, and that Congress may delegate review authority to an administrative agency.  The Supreme Court also noted that the founders likely considered this issue when writing the U.S. Constitution.  The founders wrote the Patent Clause in the Constitution “against the backdrop” of the English legal system, which included “Privy Councils.” Privy Councils were effectively administrative courts in England that could review and revoke patents.  Because the founders were likely aware of Privy Councils when writing the U.S. Constitution, and because the founders did not specify that patent rights were immune from administrative courts, the Supreme Court reasoned that the U.S. Constitution did not prohibit Congress from now establishing administrative courts (like the USPTO’s administrative court, i.e., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB) to review and revoke patents.

Interestingly, although the Supreme Court said that patents are public right for purposes of invalidating the patent through an administrative court, the Supreme Court left open the question whether there could be a violation of the Due Process Clause or the Takings Clause for patents issued before the USPTO’s IPR system went into place (in 2013).  Thus, the door on constitutional challenges to the IPR system may not yet be entirely shut.

The concurring judges argued that administrative courts may also sometimes handle adjudication even for non-public rights.  The dissenting judges argued that patents are in fact private right rights.

Final Notes

It is worth noting that having patents count as “public rights” does not render them “public property” and nothing in this decision changes the way private entities lists patents as assets, or the extent to which they can currently trade, buy, sell, or license patents, or perform other forms of conveyance and abandonment.

The fact that patents are considered public rights is primarily a procedural clarification.  As such, patentees worried about the effect of IPRs should continue to consider creative approaches to correcting and maintaining patents through the IPR process, and thereby maintain as much patent value as possible.  For example, patentees should strongly consider filing one or more reissue applications.  This is discussed in a bit more detail here:  https://www.wnlaw.com/blog/broadening-issued-patent-chance-fix-past/

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Workman Nydegger | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Workman Nydegger
Contact
more
less

Workman Nydegger on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.