No. 16-712
`
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`IN THE
`
`>> >>
`OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC,
`
`v.
`
`GREENE’S ENERGY GROUP, LLC,
`
`On Writ of Certiorari to the
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Respondent.
`
`BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PROFESSORS OF
`ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, FEDERAL COURTS,
`AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
`IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
`
`John M. Golden
`
`October 30, 2017
`
`Thomas H. Lee
`Counsel of Record
`FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
`SCHOOL OF LAW
`150 West 62nd Street
`New York, New York 10023
`212-636-6728
`thlee@fordham.edu
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`Professors of Administrative
`Law, Federal Courts, and
`Intellectual Property Law
`
`
`
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`IN THE
`
`>> >>
`OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC,
`
`v.
`
`GREENE’S ENERGY GROUP, LLC,
`
`On Writ of Certiorari to the
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Respondent.
`
`BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PROFESSORS OF
`ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, FEDERAL COURTS,
`AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
`IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
`
`John M. Golden
`
`October 30, 2017
`
`Thomas H. Lee
`Counsel of Record
`FORDHAM UNIVERSITY
`SCHOOL OF LAW
`150 West 62nd Street
`New York, New York 10023
`212-636-6728
`thlee@fordham.edu
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`Professors of Administrative
`Law, Federal Courts, and
`Intellectual Property Law
`
`
`
`i
`
`QUESTION PRESENTED
`
`Whether inter partes review—an adversarial
`process used by the Patent and Trademark Office
`(PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents—
`violates the Constitution by extinguishing private
`property rights through a non-Article III forum
`without a jury.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................... i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... iv
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................. 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 3
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................ 5
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`AN INVENTION PATENT IS A
`SOVEREIGN GRANT OF RIGHTS
`TO EXCLUDE, NOT A COMMON-
`LAW PROPERTY RIGHT. ................................ 6
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF AN
`ISSUED PATENT FOR NOVELTY
`OR NONOBVIOUSNESS, WITH
`A RIGHT OF APPEAL TO THE
`FEDERAL CIRCUIT, DOES NOT
`VIOLATE ARTICLE III. ................................. 18
`
`A. IPRs Address Matters of Public
`Right ......................................................... 18
`
`B. For Purposes of the Public Rights
`Exception, IPR Compares Favorably
`to Adjudicatory Regimes Addressed
`in the Court’s Precedents......................... 25
`
`
`
`iii
`
`C. The Results of IPR Are Subject to
`an Appeal as of Right with Robust
`Review by an Article III Court ................ 28
`
`III.
`
`IPR IS A CRITICAL DEVICE IN
`CONGRESS’S EFFORTS TO
`OPERATE A PATENT SYSTEM
`THAT PROCESSES HUNDREDS
`OF THOUSANDS OF PATENT
`APPLICATIONS EACH YEAR. ..................... 32
`
`IV. HOLDERS OF PATENTS BASED
`ON U.S. APPLICATIONS FILED
`AFTER NOVEMBER 29, 1999,
`WHEN CONGRESS FIRST
`AUTHORIZED INTER PARTES
`REEXAMINATION, SHOULD BE
`DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED
`TO INTER PARTES REVIEW
`WITH A RIGHT OF APPEAL
`ONLY TO THE FEDERAL
`CIRCUIT. ........................................................ 36
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................... 40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
`Genetics, Inc.,
`133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) ............................................ 8
`
`B & B Hardware, Inc. v.
`Hargis Indus., Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015) .......................................... 25
`
`Bank Markazi v. Peterson,
`136 S. Ct. 1310 (2016) .......................................... 29
`
`Bloomer v. McQuewan,
`55 U.S. (14 How.) 539 (1852) ........................... 9, 17
`
`Chadha v. Immigration &
`Naturalization Serv.,
`634 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1980),
`aff’d, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) ..................................... 25
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015) .......................................... 27
`
`Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n
`v. Schor,
`478 U.S. 833 (1986) .............................. 5, 26, 27, 36
`
`Cont’l Paper Bag Co. v. E. Paper
`Bag Co.,
`210 U.S. 405 (1908) ................................................ 7
`
`
`
`v
`
`Crowell v. Benson,
`285 U.S. 22 (1932) .............................. 19, 26, 28, 29
`
`Dickinson v. Zurko,
`527 U.S. 150 (1999) .............................................. 30
`
`Evans v. Eaton,
`16 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 454 (1818) .............................. 11
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo
`Kabushiki Co.,
`535 U.S. 722 (2002) ................................................ 8
`
`Gayler v. Wilder,
`51 U.S. 477 (1850) ............................................ 9, 27
`
`Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg,
`492 U.S. 33 (1989) ................................................ 26
`
`Grant v. Raymond,
`31 U.S. 218 (1832) ................................................ 11
`
`In re Gartside,
`203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................. 30
`
`In re Hatschek’s Patents,
`[1909] 26 Rep. Pat. Cas. 228
`(High Ct. of Justice, Ch. Div.) ........................ 14, 15
`
`In re Honibal’s Patent,
`[1855] 9 Moore 378 (P.C.) ..................................... 17
`
`In re Teles AG Informationstechnologien,
`747 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................... 37, 38
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Kappos v. Hyatt,
`132 S. Ct. 1690 (2012) .......................................... 37
`
`Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson
`& Johnson,
`745 F.2d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................... 8
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................ 8
`
`Lear, Inc. v. Adkins,
`395 U.S. 653 (1969) ........................................ 35, 36
`
`Leo Sheep Co. v. United States,
`440 U. S. 668 (1979) ............................................... 7
`
`Marbury v. Madison,
`1 Cranch 137 (1803) ............................................. 29
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) .............................................. 31
`
`Mathews v. Eldridge,
`424 U.S. 319 (1976) .............................................. 31
`
`Microsoft v. i4i Limited Partnership,
`131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011) .......................................... 30
`
`Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land
`& Improvement Co.,
`59 U.S. (18 How.) 272 (1855) ............... 5, 19, 20, 21
`
`
`
`vii
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v.
`Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ............................................ 8
`
`Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad
`Ocean Motor Co.,
`851 F.3d 1270 (2017) ............................................ 31
`
`Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v.
`Marathon Pipe Line Co.,
`458 U.S. 50 (1982) .......................................... 19, 26
`
`Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K. Mulford Co.,
`189 F. 95 (S.D.N.Y. 1911), rev’d in
`part, 196 F. 496 (2d Cir. 1912) ............................. 24
`
`Queen v. E. Archipelago Co.,
`[1853] 1 E. & B. 310 (Q.B.) ................................... 15
`
`Stern v. Marshall,
`564 U.S. 462 (2011) .............................. 5, 19, 23, 26
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) ...................................... 10, 17
`
`Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods
`Co., 473 U.S. 568, 586 (1985) ........................ passim
`
`Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif,
`135 S. Ct. 1932 (2015) ...................................... 5, 36
`
`Constitutional Provisions
`
`Fifth Amendment................................................. 11, 28
`
`
`
`viii
`
`U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8 ........................................... 7
`
`U.S. Const. art. III, § 1 ................................................ 5
`
`U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 ........................................ 7
`
`Statutes
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706 ....................................................... 29, 30
`
`35 U.S.C. § 141(c) ................................................. 30, 38
`
`35 U.S.C. § 143 ........................................................... 23
`
`35 U.S.C. § 151 ........................................................... 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 301 ........................................................... 37
`
`35 U.S.C. § 301 (1982) ............................................... 37
`
`35 U.S.C. § 302 ........................................................... 37
`
`35 U.S.C. § 302 (1982) ............................................... 37
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ............................................... 22, 24, 25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................ 23, 24
`
`35 U.S.C. § 319 ..................................................... 23, 30
`
`1787 N.Y. Laws 472–473 ........................................... 13
`
`1798 N.Y. Laws 215–216 ........................................... 13
`
`Act of Apr. 10, 1790,
`ch. 7, § 1, 1 Stat 109–110 ..................................... 10
`
`
`
`ix
`
`Act of July 4, 1836,
`§ 7, 5 Stat. 119 ...................................................... 10
`
`American Inventors Protection Act of
`November 29, 1999 ............................................... 38
`
`Patent Act of 1790.......................................... 10, 12, 17
`
`Patents Act, 1902,
`2 Edw. 80, 81–82, c. 34, § 3 .................................. 14
`
`Pub. L. No. 96-517,
`94 Stat. 3015 (1980).............................................. 37
`
`Rules
`
`Sup. Ct. R. 37.6 ............................................................ 1
`
`Treatises, Periodical Materials, and Other
`
`Paul M. Bator, The Constitution as
`Architecture: Legislative and
`Administrative Courts Under Article
`III, 65 Ind. L.J. 233 (1990). ............................ 19, 29
`
`Christopher Beauchamp, Repealing
`Patents 19–26 (2017), available at
`http://ssrn.com/abstract=3044003........................ 11
`
`2 William Blackstone, Commentaries
`on the Laws of England 346 (1766)
`(U. Chi. Press, 1979) ............................................... 6
`
`
`
`x
`
`Sean Bottomley, The British Patent
`System During the Industrial
`Revolution 1700–1852: From
`Privilege to Property 18 (2014) ............................ 16
`
`Oren Bracha, The Commodification of
`Patents 1600–1836: How Patents
`Became Rights and Why We Should
`Care, 38 Loyola L.A. L. Rev. 177, 205
`(2004) .................................................................... 14
`
`Oren Bracha, Owning Ideas: A History
`of Anglo-American Intellectual
`Property, ch. 1, at 110 (2005)
`(S.J.D. diss., Harv. Univ.), available
`at https://law.utexas.edu/
`faculty/obracha/dissertation/ ................................ 12
`
`Oren Bracha, Owning Ideas:
`The Intellectual Origins of American
`Intellectual Property, 1790–1909,
`at 16–18 (2016) ....................................................... 6
`
`Bruce W. Bugbee, Genesis of American
`Patent and Copyright Law (1967) ................. 10, 12
`
`Davis Rich Dewey, Early Financial
`History of the United States 246
`(1903) .................................................................... 21
`
`P.J. Federico, State Patents,
`13 J. Pat. Off. Soc’y 166, 172–173
`(1931) .................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`xi
`
`John M. Golden, Proliferating Patents
`and Patent Law’s “Cost Disease,”
`51 Hous. L. Rev. 455 (2013) ..................... 32, 33, 34
`
`John M. Golden, Working Without
`Chevron: The PTO as Prime Mover,
`65 Duke L.J. 1657 (2016) ............................... 28, 30
`
`H. Tómas Gómez-Arostegui & Sean
`Bottomley, Privy Council and Scire
`Facias 1700–1883: An Addendum
`to the Brief for H. Tómas Gómez-
`Arostegui and Sean Bottomley as
`Amici Curiae in Support of Neither
`Party (Oct. 18, 2017), available
`at http://ssrn.com/abstract=3054989 ................... 15
`
`P.A. Howell, The Judicial Committee of
`the Privy Council 1833–1876: Its
`Origins, Structure and Development
`(1979) .............................................................. 16, 17
`
`E. Wyndham Hulme, Privy Council Law
`and Practice of Letters Patent for
`Invention from the Restoration to
`1794, 33 L.Q. Rev. 180, 193–194
`(1917) .................................................................... 14
`
`Louis L. Jaffe, Judicial Control of
`Administrative Action (1965) ............................... 29
`
`
`
`xii
`
`Letter from Thomas Jefferson to
`Isaac McPherson (Aug. 13, 1813), in
`6 Thomas Jefferson, The Papers of
`Thomas Jefferson: Retirement Series
`384 (J. Jefferson Looney ed., 2009) ...................... 22
`
`Christine MacLeod, Inventing the
`Industrial Revolution: The English
`Patent System, 1660–1800 (1988) ................. 14, 16
`
`James Madison, Monopolies,
`Perpetuities, Corporations,
`Ecclesiastical Endowments,
`in James Madison, Writings 756, 757
`(Jack N. Rakove ed., 1999). .................................. 13
`
`William Martin, The English Patent
`System 111 (1904) ................................................ 14
`
`Jerry L. Mashaw, Creating the
`Administrative Constitution:
`The Lost One Hundred Years
`of American Administrative Law
`(2012) .............................................................. 11, 17
`
`Caleb Nelson, Adjudication in
`the Political Branches,
`107 Colum. L. Rev. 559, 567 (2007) ....................... 9
`
`James E. Pfander, Jurisdiction-
`Stripping and the Supreme Court’s
`Power to Supervise Inferior
`Tribunals, 78 Tex. L. Rev. 1433,
`1446 & n.52 (2000) ................................................. 6
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office,
`Data Visualization Center:
`Patents Dashboard,
`https://www.uspto.gov/dashboards/
`patents/ main.dashxml
`(last visited Oct. 26, 2017).................................... 35
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office,
`Maintenance Fee Statement,
`available via https://fees.uspto.gov/
`MaintenanceFees/fees/ details?
`applicationNumber=09373418&
`patentNumber=6179053
`(last visited Oct. 26, 2017).................................... 39
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office,
`Trial Statistics: IPR, PGR,
`CBM 5 (Sept. 2017), available
`at https://www.uspto.gov/ sites/
`default/files/documents/Trial_
`Stats_2017-09-30.pdf ............................................ 16
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office,
`U.S. Patent Activity: Calendar
`Years 1790 to the Present,
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/
`ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm
`(last visited Oct. 24, 2017).............................. 32, 34
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,179,053 ......................................... 38
`
`
`
`xiv
`
`Edward C. Walterscheid, To Promote
`the Progress of Useful Arts:
`American Patent Law and
`Administration, 1798–1836,
`at 1 (1998) ............................................................. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
`
`Amici curiae are law professors, specializing in
`administrative law, federal courts, and intellectual
`property law who have an interest in the efficient
`operation of the United States’ patent system in
`promoting technological advance in conformity with
`constitutional and other legal requirements. The
`views expressed
`in this brief represent their
`individual views and are not intended to represent
`the views of their states of residence or employment,
`their educational institutions, or any administrative
`subdivisions thereof.1 The names of amici are listed
`below, with institutional affiliations provided for
`purposes of identification.
`
`Dan L. Burk
`Chancellor’s Professor of Law
`University of California, Irvine, School of Law
`
`Christopher A. Cotropia
`Professor of Law
`University of Richmond School of Law
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 No “counsel for a party authored th[is] brief in whole or in
`part,” and no such counsel or party “made a monetary
`contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of
`the brief.” Sup. Ct. R. 37.6. Funds to support submission of the
`brief came
`from Professor Golden’s
`faculty development
`allowance at the University of Texas at Austin. The parties
`gave blanket consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs such as
`this one.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Samuel Estreicher
`Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law
`New York University School of Law
`
`John M. Golden
`Professor in Law
`The University of Texas at Austin
`
`Harold J. Krent
`Dean and Professor of Law
`Chicago-Kent College of Law
`
`Megan M. La Belle
`Professor of Law
`The Catholic University of America
`Columbus School of Law
`
`Thomas H. Lee
`Leitner Family Professor
`Fordham University School of Law
`
`Kali Murray
`Associate Professor of Law
`Marquette University Law School
`
`Xuan-Thao Nguyen
`Gerald L. Bepko Chair in Law
`Indiana University McKinney School of Law
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`A government’s grant of an invention patent
`does not create a core private property right
`immunized from administrative reexamination for
`compliance with statutory requirements. In Great
`Britain and the states of the early Republic, the
`sovereign retained the right to revoke invention
`patents. In the early United States, reliance on
`Article III courts to handle questions of the validity of
`issued patent rights reflected the general resources
`and
`comparative
`competences
`of government
`institutions, not constitutional mandate. Trial courts
`were better suited to fact-finding and evidence-taking
`regarding prior art than Congress or Cabinet officers.
`And like Britain’s Privy Council, which exercised its
`summary revocation power as late as 1779 and
`retained but did not exercise that power in the
`nineteenth century, Congress and Cabinet officers
`had other pressing responsibilities.
`
`Congress enacted inter partes review (IPR) as
`a mechanism to police patent validity in response to a
`choking multitude of issued patents (many including
`claims of dubious validity), an influx of several
`hundred thousand new patent applications per year,
`and aggressive practices of patent assertion. IPR is
`limited to giving the Patent and Trademark Office
`(PTO)
`authority
`to
`reexamine
`patentability
`requirements of novelty and nonobviousness for
`which the PTO has long been the gatekeeper prior to
`patent issuance. Questions of patent infringement or
`remedies for infringement are outside IPR’s domain.
`Further, Congress has provided for a robust right to
`
`
`
`4
`
`appeal a final decision in IPR to an Article III court:
`the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`The PTO’s inter partes review of issued
`patents subject to judicial review does not violate
`Article III. The subject matter considered in IPR—
`whether specific patent claims satisfy statutory
`requirements of novelty and nonobviousness—
`concerns the validity of patent rights against the
`world and thus falls within the so-called “public
`rights” exception for non-Article III adjudication.
`Even if the traditional public rights exception does
`not
`apply,
`any
`lingering
`concerns
`about
`encroachment on Article III
`judicial power are
`answered by the existence of a right to an appeal to
`the Federal Circuit that is de novo on questions of
`law and meaningful on questions of fact.
`
`Finally, in 1980, Congress enacted not only
`requirements
`for maintenance
`fees, but also
`provisions for ex parte reexamination by the PTO of
`the same validity questions at issue in IPR today.
`Hence, as of 1980, inventors and their assignees had
`clear notice that, by applying for a patent, they would
`be participating voluntarily in a regulatory scheme
`under which the enforceability and validity of patent
`rights were subject
`to
`the PTO’s continuing
`jurisdiction. Since at least November 29, 1999, such
`persons had notice that, for patents resulting from
`applications filed after that date, any challenge to the
`results of a reexamination, whether ex parte or inter
`partes, would need to take the exclusive path of an
`appeal to the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`
`5
`
`In sum, by instituting IPR with a right of
`appeal
`to
`the Federal Circuit, Congress has
`maintained Article III judicial power while supplying
`an appropriate administrative response to systemic
`need.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`In interpreting the Constitution’s vesting of
`judicial Power of the United States”
`in
`“[t]he
`Article III courts, U.S. Const. art. III, § 1, this Court
`has recognized that “a matter of ‘public right’ … can
`be decided outside the Judicial Branch.” Stern v.
`Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 488 (2011). In applying this
`public rights doctrine, the Court has been attentive to
`historical understandings and practice. Murray’s
`Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S.
`(18 How.) 272, 277 (1855). The Court has also
`emphasized more practical concerns: “the extent to
`which the ‘essential attributes of judicial power’ are
`reserved to Article III courts, and, conversely, the
`extent to which the non-Article III forum exercises
`the range of jurisdiction and powers normally vested
`only in Article III courts, the origins and importance
`of the right to be adjudicated, and the concerns that
`drove”
`resort
`to non-Article
`III adjudication.
`Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478
`U.S. 833, 851 (1986).
` Finally, the Court has
`highlighted the potential relevance of parties’ consent
`to non-Article III adjudication.
` Wellness Int’l
`Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932, 1944 (2015).
`All of these considerations favor a conclusion that
`IPR does not violate Article III, most particularly as
`
`
`
`6
`
`applied to patents resulting from U.S. applications
`filed after November 29, 1999.
`
`I. AN INVENTION PATENT IS A SOVEREIGN
`GRANT OF RIGHTS TO EXCLUDE, NOT A
`COMMON-LAW PROPERTY RIGHT.
`
`In the Anglo-American legal order, a “patent”
`—more accurately “letters to be made patent”—is a
`sovereign government’s public announcement of a
`grant of an exclusive right to a private person.2
`These grants have historically included such diverse
`objects as government ranks or posts, lands for
`development and settlement, exclusive licenses for
`fishing in territorial waters or mining public lands,
`and exclusive rights in inventions. See James E.
`Pfander, Jurisdiction-Stripping and the Supreme
`Court’s Power to Supervise Inferior Tribunals, 78
`Tex. L. Rev. 1433, 1446 & n.52 (2000). Prior to the
`founding, invention patents commonly granted rights
`to make or use an invention as well as to exclude
`others from such activities. See Oren Bracha,
`Owning Ideas: The Intellectual Origins of American
`Intellectual Property, 1790–1909, at 16–18 (2016).
`
`All patents are grants of exclusive right from
`the government to a person, but not all patents were
`
`
`2 “Letters patent” was the English translation of the Latin
`expression “literae patentes,” literally “open letters,” meaning a
`sovereign grant that was publicly proclaimed, by contrast to
`secret “literae clausae” or “closed letters.” See 2 William
`Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 346 (1766)
`(U. Chi. Press, 1979).
`
`
`
`7
`
`created equal as to the grantee’s rights. On one end
`was the land patent, which typically gave the grantee
`a permanent exclusive right to specified land. See,
`e.g., Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 440 U. S. 668
`(1979) (detailing history of Congress’s “checkerboard”
`land grants to build a transcontinental railroad).
`Letters patent conveying land were thus essentially
`title transfers creating a traditional private property
`right. Congress’s power to confer land patents has
`neither a purpose nor a duration limitation. Instead,
`the Constitution simply states, “The Congress shall
`have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules
`and Regulations respecting the Territory or other
`Property belonging to the United States.” U.S. Const.
`art. IV, § 3, cl. 2.
`
`to grant
`In contrast, Congress’s power
`invention patents is limited in several respects. The
`U.S. Constitution provides Congress with power “[t]o
`promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
`securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
`the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
`Discoveries.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. This
`language authorizes grants of invention patents only
`“for limited Times.” Further, the grant is to be to an
`“Inventor[]” and in the service of “promot[ing] the
`Progress of Science and useful Arts.” U.S. Const. art.
`I, § 8, cl. 8; see also Cont’l Paper Bag Co. v. E. Paper
`Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 423 (1908) (“The patent law is
`the execution of a policy having its first expression in
`the Constitution ….”). And for relevant purposes, the
`“exclusive Right” is to “Discoveries.” U.S. Const. art.
`I, § 8, cl. 8.
`
`
`
`8
`
`The bases for such limitations on invention
`patents are not hard to grasp. Human innovation is
`cumulative:
`it
`is the nature of
`invention to
`comprehend and improve upon prior inventions and
`knowledge. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v.
`Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013).
`Perpetual patents could stifle innovation by leading
`to ever-increasing accumulations of exclusive rights.
`Likewise, without requirements of novelty and
`nonobviousness, patent claims might proliferate to
`cover matter already invented or slight variations
`thereto. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`398, 427 (2007). Lack of a requirement of patent
`claim definiteness could leave patent rights in an
`invention with highly uncertain scope. See Nautilus,
`Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129
`(2014).
`
`But such requirements are often difficult to
`implement in practice. Words may fall short in
`describing new inventions. See Festo Corp. v.
`Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S.
`722, 731
`(2002).
` Assessment of novelty or
`nonobviousness may require laborious sifting through
`decades of prior art. See Kimberly-Clark Corp. v.
`Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1452 (Fed. Cir.
`1984) (observing that, for purposes of assessing
`nonobviousness, the Patent Act “requires us to
`presume full knowledge by the inventor of the prior
`art in the field of his endeavor” (internal quotation
`marks
`and
`emphasis
`omitted)).
` Resulting
`uncertainty
`in scope and validity distinguishes
`patents for inventions from patents for subject matter
`with more readily determinable metes and bounds,
`
`
`
`9
`
`such as parcels of land. Consequently, even before
`the U.S. patent system approached its modern
`caseload of hundreds of
`thousands of patent
`applications each year, the Anglo-American legal
`order long recognized a continuing sovereign power to
`revoke invention patents mistakenly bestowed.
`
`The fact that, around the time of the United
`States’ founding, challenges to patent validity were
`frequently entertained by English common law courts
`does not entail the conclusion that invention patents
`were “core” private property rights in the Lockean
`sense of “natural rights that individuals would enjoy
`even in the absence of political society,” Caleb Nelson,
`Adjudication in the Political Branches, 107 Colum. L.
`Rev. 559, 567 (2007). The Constitution’s explicit
`tying of patents’ “exclusive Right[s]” to the public end
`of “promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful
`Arts” suggests the contrary. Core private rights have
`been contrasted to “ ‘privileges’ or ‘franchises’ ” that
`“were but means to carry out public ends.” Id. In the
`mid-nineteenth century, this Court characterized a
`patent as granting a “franchise … consist[ing]
`altogether in the right to exclude every one from the
`making, using, or vending the thing patented,
`without the permission of the patentee.” Bloomer v.
`McQuewan, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 539, 549 (1852).
`
`Indeed, the right to exclude granted by letters
`patent did “not exist at common law.” Gayler v.
`Wilder, 51 U.S. 477, 494 (1850). As Justice Thomas
`recently explained:
`
`Invention patents originated not as
`private property
`rights, but as
`royal
`
`
`
`10
`
`prerogatives. They could be issued and revoked
`only by the Crown, which sometimes used the
`patent to delegate governmental power to
`regulate an industry. Provoked by the Crown’s
`use of these so-called “monopoly patents” to
`promote private economic
`interests over
`innovation
`and
`beneficial
`commerce,
`Parliament enacted the Statute of Monopolies
`in 1624. But even under the regime that
`Parliament put in place, patents remained
`sovereign grants, issued, enforced, and revoked
`by the Privy Council. The Framers adopted a
`similar scheme.
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct.
`831, 847 (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (internal
`citations omitted).
`
`It is unsurprising, then, that before the First
`Congress enacted the Patent Act of 1790, the
`established practice in the States was to grant patent
`rights by special statute. See Bruce W. Bugbee,
`Genesis of American Patent and Copyright Law 102–
`103, 132–136 (1967). Under the 1790 Act and its
`successors, Congress generally delegated the task of
`granting patents to the Executive Branch. See, e.g.,
`35 U.S.C. § 151; Act of July 4, 1836, § 7, 5 Stat. 119;
`Act of Apr. 10, 1790, ch. 7, § 1, 1 Stat 109–110.
`
`As noted above, the U.S. Constitution vests the
`Legislative Branch with power to grant a limited-
`time “exclusive Right” to a “Discovery.” Accordingly,
`Congress may extend a patent term in the public
`interest and may also repeal a patent upon
`
`
`
`11
`
`determining that there was in fact no “Discovery.”3
`Congress has occasionally passed statutes extending
`the terms of individual patents. See, e.g., Evans v.
`Eaton, 16 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 454, 506–507 (1818). The
`courts, however, were historically the forum for
`repeals of patents for non-compliance with statutory
`requirements.
` See Christopher Beauchamp,
`Repealing Patents 19–26
`(2017), available at
`http://ssrn.com/abstract=3044003.
`This
`was,
`presumably in part, because grounds for challenging
`the validity of an issued patent, such as the existence
`of invalidating prior art or an inadequate patent
`disclosure, see, e.g., Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218,
`239
`(1832)—required
`scrutiny
`of
`written
`specifications and particularized fact-finding, tasks
`for which courts and juries were relatively well-suited
`in comparison to Congress. During this period,
`Congress “seemed to have little hesitation in using
`courts or judicial personnel as administrators.” Jerry
`L. Mashaw,
`Creating
`the
`Administrative
`Constitution: The Lost One Hundred Years of
`American Administrative Law 74 (2012).
`
`It would be anachronistic to infer from the
`absence of post-issuance review by a patent office and
`the leading role of courts in early validity challenges
`that Article III of the Constitution required the courts
`to play the role they did. It was a state of play keyed
`not to constitutional command, but rather to the
`
`
`3 We express no view on whether and under what circumstances
`such a repeal would constitute a “taking” requiring just
`compensation because that Fifth Amendment issue is not before
`the Court. Cf. Union Carbide, 473 U.S. at 585.
`
`
`
`12
`
`practical realities of a relatively bare-bones Executive
`Branch. The “Patent Board” established by the
`Patent Act of 1790 consisted of the Secretary of State,
`the Secretary of War, and the Attorney General, all of
`whom had other substantial responsibilities. Bruce
`W. Bugbee, Genesis of American Patent and
`Copyright Law 149–150 (1967). The influx of new
`patent applications soon overwhelmed this Board,
`and the result was congressional enactment in 1793
`of a pure registration system for patents that
`prevailed until 1836. Id. In that year, Congress
`created a Patent Office with professional examiners
`to check applications for compliance with statutory
`requirements such as novelty. See Edward C.
`Walterscheid, To Promote the Progress of Useful
`Arts: American Patent Law and Administration,
`1798–1836, at 1 (1998).
`
`With respect to repeals, the general American
`view at the time of the founding was apparently that
`a legislature had the power to cancel invention
`patents, just as it had the right to grant them. Oren
`Bracha, Owning Ideas: A History of Anglo-American
`Intellectual Property, ch. 1, at 110 (2005) (S.J.D.
`diss., Harv. Univ.), available at https://law.utexas.edu/
`faculty/obracha/dissertation/. Multiple patents enacted
`by early state legislatures provided expressly for their
`repeal and specified payment to the patentee upon
`such action. Bugbee, supra, at 96–97, 100. In at
`least one instance, a state patent was repealed even
`in the absence of such a provision.4 P.J. Federico,
`
`
`4 See Oren Bracha, Owning Ideas: A History of Anglo-American
`Intellectual Property, ch. 1, at 110 (2005) (S.J.D. diss., Harv.
`
`
`
`13
`
`State Patents, 13 J. Pat. Off. Soc’y 166, 172–173
`(1931) (discussing repeal in New York and repeal
`petitions in Pennsylvania). Compare 1798 N.Y. Laws
`215–216
`(repealing act granting “an exclusive
`privilege” to make and use a steamboat after
`concluding that the privilege was “justly forfeited”),
`with 1787 N.Y. Laws 472–473 (original grant).
`James Madison supported providing for repeal in
`advance, explaining:
`
`In all cases of monopoly, not excepting
`those specified in favor of authors & inventors,
`it would be well to reserve to the State, a
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
