We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
08 July 2019
On 14 June 2019 a Federal Circuit panel (Judges Dyk, Wallach and Hughes) in Regents of the Univ of Minn v LSI Corp (2018-1559) held that state sovereign immunity does not apply to inter partes review proceedings conducted before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
In this dispute, the University of Minnesota (UMN) sued LSI and Ericsson customers in district court for the infringement of several UMN patents claiming 4G LTE telecoms technology. LSI and Ericsson subsequently petitioned the PTAB to institute inter partes review proceedings against those patents. In turn, the UMN moved to dismiss the proceedings based on state sovereign immunity. An expanded panel of the PTAB determined that state sovereign immunity applied to inter partes review – but that the UMN had waived such immunity by suing petitioners in district court. The UMN appealed the PTAB's determination to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit held that state sovereign immunity does not apply to inter partes review. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit did not reach the issue of whether, if state sovereign immunity were to apply, the UMN had waived such immunity by suing petitioners in district court.
Dyk wrote the Federal Circuit's opinion, which began with a discussion of "the history of inter partes review proceedings and the reasons that Congress created such proceedings". The Federal Circuit noted that:
The Federal Circuit then explained that, while states typically enjoy immunity from suits brought by private parties, such immunity does not extend to agency enforcement proceedings. Here, the Federal Circuit relied heavily on Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v Mylan Pharms, Inc,(1) in which it previously held that tribal immunity did not apply to inter partes review proceedings because the proceedings – despite incorporating litigation-like features to expand private-party participation and thereby help the PTO with its "agency resource constraints" – are more akin to "agency enforcement actions" than to civil litigation. As in Saint Regis, the Federal Circuit observed that:
The Federal Circuit also drew from recent Supreme Court decisions to support its conclusion that inter partes review are more like agency proceedings, including:
The Federal Circuit acknowledged that two recent Supreme Court decisions, SAS Inst, Inc v Iancu(5) and Return Mail, Inc v US Postal Serv,(6) characterised inter partes review proceedings as less 'agency-led' and more 'adversarial', but these characterisations did not disturb the ultimate conclusion that inter partes review "is more like an agency enforcement action than a civil suit brought by a private party".
The Federal Circuit further rejected the UMN's efforts to distinguish the tribal immunity at issue in Saint Regis from state sovereign immunity. The UMN had argued that tribal immunity is subject to the "superior and plenary control of Congress", whereas state sovereign immunity can be abrogated only under "a valid grant of constitutional authority". The Federal Circuit dismissed that purported distinction, noting that:
The UMN also argued that, unlike tribal immunity, there is a presumption (the Hans presumption) that state sovereign immunity applies to proceedings that had been "anomalous and unheard of when the Constitution was adopted". The Federal Circuit disagreed that the Hans presumption applied to inter partes review proceedings, noting – as did the Supreme Court in Oil States – that when the Constitution was adopted, precedent had existed for the cancellation of patent claims by the executive (ie, by the Privy Council in England). The Federal Circuit also noted that, in FMC, the Hans presumption "did not bar resolution of an agency enforcement action against a state that was initiated based on information supplied by a third party".
The Federal Circuit concluded that inter partes review:
represents the sovereign's reconsideration of the initial patent grant, and the differences between state and tribal sovereign immunity do not warrant a different result than in Saint Regis. We therefore conclude that state sovereign immunity does not apply to IPR [inter partes review] proceedings.
Unusually, Dyk, Wallach and Hughes included a separate section from the court's opinion, which set out their additional views. This section asserts that inter partes review proceedings "are in substance the type of in rem proceedings to which state sovereign immunity does not apply". It explains that, while courts have found state sovereign immunity to apply to certain in rem actions involving state-owned real property, patents are not real property; instead, they are creations of federal law and are subject to regulation by that law, "which includes the ability of the executive to consider whether a previous grant was erroneous".
The 'additional views' section analogises an inter partes review to a bankruptcy proceeding to discharge a state student loan debt – a type of proceeding in which the Supreme Court held in Tenn Student Assistance Corp v Hood,(7) that state sovereign immunity did not apply. According to Dyk, Wallach and Hughes, like such a bankruptcy proceeding, an inter partes review "is not premised on 'obtaining jurisdiction over a state or its officers' and does not subject a state to monetary damages, affirmative relief or a 'coercive judicial process'". The section concludes that:
we see no reason why the exercise of the executive's historically well-recognized ability to reconsider a grant of a public franchise in an in rem proceeding is more threatening to state sovereignty than the exercise of an Article III court's bankruptcy in rem jurisdiction (internal quotations and citations omitted).
For further information on this topic please contact Christopher Loh at Venable LLP by telephone (+1 410 244 7400) or email (email@example.com). The Venable LLP website can be accessed at www.venable.com.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.