- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Patents
- Date Filed: April 24, 2018
- Case #: 16-712
- Judge(s)/Court Below: THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner, the owner of a patent for technology used in hydraulic fracturing, sued Respondent for infringement. Respondent challenged the validity of the patent in federal district court, and petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (The Board) conducts inter partes review as authorized by Congress under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6, 316 (c). The district court ruled in favor of Petitioner, while The Board concluded that the technology claimed by Petitioner was unpatentable. Petitioner appealed The Board decision to the federal circuit, arguing that patent revocation review must be conducted in an Article III court before a jury. Pursuant to the decision in MCM Portfolio LLC. v. Hewlett-Packard, Co., 812 F. 3d 1284 (2015), the district court affirmed the decision of The Board. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that inter partes review did not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment. The Court reasoned that because grants of patents are public rights’ functions, which do not require judicial determination, a patent review of an earlier administrative grant does not require a jury trial under Article III or the Seventh Amendment. AFFIRMED.