CCIA Files Amicus In IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected. Constitutionality Case At Supreme Court
Yesterday, we filed an amicus brief (along with the Internet Association, the National Association of Realtors, the Software and Information Industry Association, the Association of Global Automakers, and SAS Institute) in the Oil States v. Greene’s Energy case in the Supreme Court. This case is a challenge to the constitutionality of the inter partes review (IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected.) system, claiming that IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected. is unconstitutional.
Oil States, a drilling company, patented a technique used in fracking. It then sued another drilling company, Greene’s Energy, claiming Greene’s had infringed the patent. Greene’s, faced with an expensive lawsuit, chose to file an IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected.. The Patent Trials and Appeals Board decided that the Oil States patent was invalid, and the Federal CircuitSee CAFC affirmed.
Oil States, rather than accepting that the prior artPrior art is the knowledge in the field of a patent that was publicly available before the patent was filed. disclosed their idea, chose to appeal their case to the Supreme Court, claiming that the same executive agency which determines whether to grant a patent cannot legally review whether that grant was erroneous. They claim that doing so violates Article III of the Constitution and the Seventh Amendment.
The Summary of Argument in the brief does a nice job of making our point, so I’ll just show you what we said.
And there’s a very simple reason why. Patents are public rights, created by Congress and implemented via Congress’s express statutory scheme. Part of that scheme, created by an overwhelming majority vote in Congress, is inter partes review.
The petitioner, and the amici claiming that IPRIntellectual Property Rights. Usually associated with formal legal rights such as patent, trademark, and copyright. Intellectual property is a broader term that encompasses knowledge, information, and data considered proprietary whether or not it is formally protected. is unconstitutional, rely on arguments that our brief discredits—analogies to land patents, claims that patent validity was adjudicated at common law, claims that patents can only be invalidated by a jury. None of those arguments hold up, as our brief explains.
We’re not the only ones who think the petitioner’s arguments are wrong: amici ranging from the AARP and Apple to chip manufacturer TSMC and 72 distinguished IP law professors agree.
Argument in the case is November 27th. That’s when we’ll have a better sense of what the Justices think of all this.
