Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC

Last updated
Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 27, 2017
Decided April 24, 2018
Full case nameOil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC
Docket no. 16-712
Citations584 U.S. ___ ( more )
138 S. Ct. 1365; 200 L. Ed. 2d 671; 126 U.S.P.Q.2d 1293
Case history
Prior639 F. App'x 639 (Fed. Cir. 2016); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 2239 (2017).
Holding
The inter partes review process granted by Congress to the United States Patent and Trademark Office is constitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceBreyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor
DissentGorsuch, joined by Roberts

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the inter partes review process granted by Congress to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for challenging the validity of patents, rather than a jury trial, is constitutional and did not violate either Article III of the Constitution nor the Seventh Amendment. [1]

Contents

Background

The United States Congress passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in 2012. Among its provisions, the Act gave the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) the ability to handle challenges to patent validity following their granting through an improved inter partes review process. [2] [ original research? ] Prior to the Act's passage, a party could request USPTO to initiate a full re-examination of a patent, which was a lengthy and costly process for the office. Alternatively, the party could challenge the patent through a jury trial within the Circuit Court system. With the new inter partes review process, a party can seek to invalidate specific claims of a patent based on published prior art by filing a petition with the USPTO. The owner of the patent may then file a response to the petition. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) then reviews the materials, and if it deems there is a reasonable challenge, it will hold a trial hearing with the parties, and issue a ruling on the validity of the claims in question. This process was designed to reduce the time and costs of dealing with inter partes challenges to patents.

Since its implementation, the inter partes review process has come under some criticism. Large tech firms support the process as it enables them to fend off patent infringement challenges from patent trolls without extensive costs. [3] In contrast, biomedical and pharmaceutical firms are critical of the process since it is a non-judicial review by which rival companies can challenge and invalidate their patents, which often are the product of extensive time and costs for research and development. [4] The inter partes review process has led the PTAB being called the "patent death squad", a term coined by Randall Rader, a former Chief Judge on the Federal Appeals Court. [5]

Procedural history

Oil States Energy Services, LLC had gained ownership of a 2001 patent related to protection of oilwells. In 2012, Oil States filed a patent infringement lawsuit within the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Greene's Energy Group, LLC, claiming that Greene's Energy were violating their oilwell protection patent. In addition to defending itself and attempting to prove the patent was invalid in the District Court, Greene's Energy filed a petition for an inter partes review with PTAB to challenge two of the claims of Oil States' patent, which if found invalid, would nullify the patent infringement claims. Following receipt of Oil States' response to the petition, the PTAB found that there was a likelihood that Greene's Energy's challenge would prevail and initiated the inter partes review. [6]

Both the District Court trial and the inter partes review ran simultaneously. While District Court denied summary judgment to Greene’s Energy, allowing the case to proceed, [7] [8] the PTAB ruled that the two claims were invalid and cancelled Oil States’ patents. [9] [8] Oil States appealed PTAB's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, both on the patentability of the claims in question, as well as challenging the inter partes review process. Oil States stated that patents were considered to be a private right, and challenges to patent validity is a judicial process requiring a jury trial. Therefore, they claimed the inter partes review process violated Article III of the Constitution and the Seventh Amendment. Because Oil States' appeal challenged the America Invents Acts, the federal government joined as a respondent to the case. [6] Both Greene's Energy and the federal government called upon the Federal Circuit decision in MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., [10] which had ruled in a similar manner that the USPTO's patent granting authority was "a federal regulatory scheme" and considered a public right based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Stern v. Marshall , [11] and that the inter partes review did not violate Article III nor the Seventh Amendment. While MCM Portfolio was petitioned to the Supreme Court, it declined to hear the case at that time. [12]

The Federal Circuit Appeals Court summarily affirmed the PTAB's ruling, [13] [8] leading Oil States' to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to hear the case in November 2016. The Court granted certiorari in June 2017 specifically to address the Article III and Seventh Amendment questions raised by Oil States. [14] [15]

Supreme Court

The case was heard by the Court on November 27, 2017, and announced judgment against Oil States on April 24, 2018. Voting 7-2 to affirm the lower court, the Court held that the inter partes review process did not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment.

Opinion of the Court

The majority decision was written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. [16] Thomas asserted that the granting of a patent was a public right and more specifically, a public franchise, and as found in Louisville Bridge Co. v. United States, [17] the government can authorize and deauthorize that franchise to a private entity without intercession of an Article III court. [6] Thomas stated that the inter partes review "is simply a reconsideration of that grant, and Congress has permissibly reserved the PTO's authority to conduct that reconsideration". [18] The Court stated that its opinion did not contradict established case law that patents are private property, such as found in United States v. American Bell Telephone Co. , [19] only that the granting and re-examination of patents falls within the public rights managed by the Executive Branch.

Concurrence

Justice Breyer filed a concurrence that was joined by Ginsburg and Sotomayor. While Breyer agreed in full with the majority opinion, he stated that precedent held that even matters dealing with private rights do not require adjudication by Article III courts and can be performed by government agencies.

Dissent

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts. Gorsuch wrote that patents had generally been considered to be a personal right "that the federal government could revoke only with the concurrence of independent judges" and that the majority opinion set a precedent that "invites us to retreat from the promise of judicial independence." [18]

Related Research Articles

Neither software nor computer programs are explicitly mentioned in statutory United States patent law. Patent law has changed to address new technologies, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) beginning in the latter part of the 20th century have sought to clarify the boundary between patent-eligible and patent-ineligible subject matter for a number of new technologies including computers and software. The first computer software case in the Supreme Court was Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972. Since then, the Supreme Court has decided about a half dozen cases touching on the patent eligibility of software-related inventions.

Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking and tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods. Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations.

Patentable, statutory or patent-eligible subject matter is subject matter which is susceptible of patent protection. The laws or patent practices of many countries provide that certain subject-matter is excluded from patentability, even if the invention is novel and non-obvious. Together with criteria such as novelty, inventive step or nonobviousness, utility, and industrial applicability, which differ from country to country, the question of whether a particular subject matter is patentable is one of the substantive requirements for patentability.

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) was an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decided issues of patentability. Under the America Invents Act, the BPAI was replaced with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), effective September 16, 2012.

In United States patent law, a reexamination is a process whereby anyone—third party or inventor—can have a U.S. patent reexamined by a patent examiner to verify that the subject matter it claims is patentable. To have a patent reexamined, an interested party must submit prior art, in the form of patents or printed publications, that raises a "substantial new question of patentability". The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act makes substantial changes to the U.S. patent system, including new mechanisms for challenging patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. One of the new mechanisms is a post-grant review proceeding, which will provide patent challengers expanded bases on which to attack patents.

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a process claim directed to a numerical algorithm, as such, was not patentable because "the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself." That would be tantamount to allowing a patent on an abstract idea, contrary to precedent dating back to the middle of the 19th century. The ruling stated "Direct attempts to patent programs have been rejected [and] indirect attempts to obtain patents and avoid the rejection ... have confused the issue further and should not be permitted." The case was argued on October 16, 1972, and was decided November 20, 1972.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Leahy–Smith America Invents Act</span>

The Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (AIA) is a United States federal statute that was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011. The law represents the most significant legislative change to the U.S. patent system since the Patent Act of 1952 and closely resembles previously proposed legislation in the Senate in its previous session.

i4i is an independent software company specializing in the delivery of XML / SGML document processing software in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, founded by Michel Vulpe in 1993.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decides issues of patentability. It was formed on September 16, 2012, as one part of the America Invents Act. Prior to its formation, the main judicial body in the USPTO was the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI).

The Washington Redskins trademark dispute was a legal effort by Native Americans to define the term "redskin" to be an offensive and pejorative racial slur to deprive the owners of the NFL's Washington Redskins of the ability to maintain federal trademark protection for the name. These efforts had primarily been carried forward in two cases brought before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). While prevailing in the most recent case in which the trademarks were cancelled, petitioners withdrew for further litigation now that the legal issue has become moot due to a decision in another case which found the relevant portion of the trademark law to be an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech.

An inter partes review (IPR) is a procedure for challenging the validity of a United States patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, is a July 2015 decision of the Federal Circuit affirming the final order of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the recently created adjudicatory arm of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), invalidating as patent ineligible the claims in issue of Versata's U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350. This was the first case in the Federal Circuit reviewing a final order in a Covered Business Method (CBM) invalidation proceeding under the America Invents Act (AIA). The case set an important precedent by deciding several unsettled issues in the interpretation of the CBM provisions of the AIA>, including what are business-method patents under the AIA and whether the AIA authorizes the PTO to hold such patents invalid in CBM proceedings on the ground that they are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as "abstract ideas."

A covered business method (CBM) patent is defined in section 18 of the America Invents Act (AIA) as a patent that "claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service," but is not for a "technological" invention. The AIA statute provides for CBM review of CBM patents. This review is an administrative proceeding to determine the validity of the patent under review. Congress created CBM review because of a concern with "litigation abuse over business method patents."

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), was a Supreme Court case that challenged the validity of gene patents in the United States, specifically questioning certain claims in issued patents owned or controlled by Myriad Genetics that cover isolated DNA sequences, methods to diagnose propensity to cancer by looking for mutated DNA sequences, and methods to identify drugs using isolated DNA sequences. Prior to the case, the U.S. Patent Office accepted patents on isolated DNA sequences as a composition of matter. Diagnostic claims were already under question through the Supreme Court's prior holdings in Bilski v. Kappos and Mayo v. Prometheus. Drug screening claims were not seriously questioned prior to this case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe and Restasis patent</span>

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 896 F.3d 1322 is a United States Patent case, decided by the CAFC, deciding whether or not indigenous tribes' sovereign immunity extended to patent lawsuits. In September 2017, the American pharmaceutical company Allergan agreed to transfer six pharmaceutical patents for the ophthalmic form of the drug Restasis to the St. Regis tribe of the Mohawk people. At the time, the St. Regis tribe viewed this blockbuster deal as a new, viable supply of income outside of their primary source, the gambling industry. Following the deal, Allergan received an onslaught of criticism from outside companies and politicians such as Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who said that the deal, "'impair[s] competition across the pharmaceutical industry.'"

SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the United States Patent and Trademark Office, when conducting an inter partes review, must make judgement on all patent claims contested by the petitioner.

Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service, No. 17–1594, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case before the United States Supreme Court, related to the separation of powers doctrine. More specifically, it deals with the question whether a government agency can act as a "person" to challenge a patent through an administrative (non-judicial) patent review within the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that within context of Leahy-Smith, the government does not constitute a "person".

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.

United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution as it related to patent judges on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In a complex decision, the Court ruled that these judges were considered "primary officers" under the Appointments Clause, normally subject to appointment through the US President and the US Senate, but to remedy the matter, the Court ruled that the constitutional issue is resolved by allowing the PTAB decisions to be subject to review by the appropriately-appointed Director of the Patent Office.

Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367, was a 2020 decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding whether inter partes review institution decisions by the United States Patent and Trademark Office were subject to judicial review. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued an opinion finding that such decisions were not judicially reviewable. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority's ruling, arguing that neither Congress or the Constitution authorized a lack of judicial review of such decisions.

References

  1. ↑ Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC,No. 16-712 , 584 U.S. ___(2018).
  2. ↑ 35 U.S.C.   §§ 311 – 319.
  3. ↑ Joe Mullin, "Supreme Court will weigh in on troll-killing patent-review process", Ars Technica (June 13, 2017), Archive
  4. ↑ Susan Decker, "Likes the Patent 'Death Squad.' Allergan Pays to Avoid It", Bloomberg Businessweek (Sept. 20, 2017), Archive
  5. ↑ Tony Dutra, "Rader Regrets CLS Bank Impasse, Comments on Latest Patent Reform Bill", Bloomberg Businessweek (Oct. 29, 2013), Archive
  6. 1 2 3 Timothy Lee, "Supreme Court upholds patent review process, dealing trolls a blow, Ars Technica (Apr. 24, 2018), Archive
  7. ↑ Oil States Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Trojan Wellhead Prot., Inc., No. 12-cv-611, 2014 WL 12360946, at *11 (E.D. Tex. June 23, 2014).
  8. 1 2 3 "Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC". harvardlawreview.org. Retrieved 2020-05-18.
  9. ↑ IPR 2014-00216.
  10. ↑ MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 812F.3d1284 , 1290( Fed. Cir. 2015).
  11. ↑ Stern v. Marshall , 564 U.S. 462 (2011).
  12. ↑ Brian Mudge & Clifford Ulrich, "to Decide 2:Are AIA Patent reviews Constitutional?", Nat'l Law Review (June 22, 2017), Archive
  13. ↑ Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC,639F. App'x639(Fed. Cir.2016).
  14. ↑ Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC,137S. Ct.2239(2017).
  15. ↑ Megan Douglah, Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group: The Future of Inter Partes Review and Its Impact on the Energy Sector , 3 Oil & Gas, Nat. Resources & Energy J. 1343 (2018).
  16. ↑ Note, The Supreme Court, 2017 Term — Leading Cases , 132 Harv. L. Rev. 307 (2018).
  17. ↑ Louisville Bridge Co. v. United States, 242 U.S. 409 (1917).
  18. 1 2 Richard Wolf, "Supreme Court upholds patent review process in victory for tech companies", USA Today (Apr. 24, 2018), Archive
  19. ↑ United States v. American Bell Telephone Co. , 167 U.S. 224 (1897).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.