At the end of April, the Supreme Court decided two cases concerning the inter partes review (IPR) proceedings enacted as part of the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA). While distinct cases, together they have implications for the future of the IPR process.
In Oil States Energy Services v. Greene Energy Group, the Supreme Court addressed whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), rather than a federal court, could review existing patents. The Court upheld the role of the USPTO, but only on the narrow constitutional grounds raised in the case. Specifically, the Court ruled IPR does not violate 1) the constitutional provisions on the role of the courts (Article III) or 2) the constitutional guarantee of a jury trial in certain civil proceedings (the Seventh Amendment). This decision confirmed Congress may give the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) the task of double-checking whether patents were properly granted.
However, Oil States was narrow and did not decide 1) whether it is unconstitutional to apply the IPR process to patents granted prior to the AIA’s enactment in 2011; 2) whether IPR as implemented could violate constitutional due process protections; or 3) whether IPR is the correct tool to adjudicate patent rights. The Court stated specifically that although it referred to patent rights as being subject to the “public rights doctrine,” the case should not be misread as meaning patent rights are not property for purposes of the due process clause or the takings clause.
In SAS Institute v. Iancu, the Court ruled that when the USPTO conducts IPR proceedings, it must do so for all of the patent claims challenged by the petitioner. Prior to this ruling, the USPTO followed regulations that allowed for review of only a subset of the petitioner’s challenges at the USPTO’s discretion. The claims section of a patent is where an applicant defines the inventions they are protecting. It is these claims petitioners point to when challenging a patent.
This decision means the USPTO will likely end up reviewing more claims, increasing the burden of IPR proceedings. However, SAS Institute’s all-or-nothing rule also means that institution of IPR proceedings could be denied outright more often than in the past. SAS Institute addressed only whether PTAB can institute and conduct proceedings on fewer than all of the claims challenged in the IPR petition. The Court did not decide whether there are other potential legal or constitutional issues with the proceedings.
Together, these cases mean that although Congress can constitutionally authorize the USPTO to review the validity of patents after they are issued, the USPTO needs to change the way it implements the statute that created the IPR process.
Oil States found only that IPR is constitutional, not that it is efficient or fair. SAS Institute makes clear there are problems with the IPR process that need to be addressed. Policymakers should take this opportunity to consider ways to address concerns raised by a number of stakeholders with the IPR process. Indeed, the USPTO has since issued a notice of proposed rule making to revise the claim construction standard used in IPR. PhRMA stands ready to engage with USPTO on additional reforms going forward.
Nicole Longo
Nicole Longo is Deputy Vice President of public affairs at PhRMA focusing on Medicare, 340B, importation and more. She previously worked for a D.C.-based public affairs firm where she assisted a wide range of clients with communications efforts on everything from trade policy to agriculture policy to health care policy. Outside the office, Nicole can be found trying new restaurants (usually Italian), taking an occasional barre class and cheering on the Cincinnati Bengals.
Nicole Longo
Updated Analysis Underscores the Need for Brazil to Address Patent Backlogs
How post-approval innovation keeps delivering for patients
40 Years of Hatch-Waxman: How Can We Secure its Legacy?
40 Years of Hatch-Waxman: How does the Hatch-Waxman Act help patients?
40 Years of Hatch-Waxman: What is the Hatch-Waxman Act?
Biden Administration report debunks myths around patent “evergreening” and “thickets”
What to know about the latest effort to break patents using a legally dubious avenue
WTAS: Proposed Unsubstantiated USPTO Rule Change is a Threat to American Innovation
PhRMA launches education campaign on the benefits of America's IP system
Experts discuss the value of IP at Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
The impact of innovative medicines: A caregiver's perspective
Proposed march-in framework would chill American innovation
The White House continues to attack American innovation
It’s PBMs, not patents, blocking competition
New PhRMA site demonstrates how a technology-driven health care system brings benefits to patients
PhRMA submits comments to USPTO highlighting important role of patent system in medicine development
Six ways I-MAK is lying about biopharma patents
New report ignores benefits of patent system to innovation and patients
The dangers of expanding the TRIPS waiver
Patent policy changes proposed by USPTO and FDA would leave patients behind
Legislation threatens patent protections and future innovation
Patients and innovators lose if the government pursues ‘march-in’
IP Explained: How does the U.S. patent process work?
New polling shows Americans are sounding the alarm on the TRIPS IP waiver
The Biden Administration allows politics to upend a pragmatic pandemic response
IP Explained: Intellectual property system working to combat COVID-19
The continued imperative to protect U.S. innovation worldwide
IP Explained: How patents support innovation throughout the biopharmaceutical lifecycle
IP Explained: Understanding biopharmaceutical innovation
IP Explained: What is Section 101 and why reforms are needed
IP Explained: Myth vs. fact about strong patent protections in the biopharmaceutical industry
IP Explained: Why patents are so critical to biopharmaceutical innovation
Special 301 submission calls for a level playing field for American innovators
Celebrating U.S. innovation as USPTO issues the 10 millionth patent
What is inter partes review and why does it matter?
ICYMI: Ubl weighs in on how fair trade protects US biopharmaceutical innovation
Illegal trade barriers discriminate against U.S. innovators
New nonprofit – I-ACT for Children – launches to promote innovative medicines development for young patients in need
PhRMA urges USTR to protect American innovators abroad
Supreme Court decisions in two cases pave way for IPR reforms
Patents
Supreme Court decisions in two cases pave way for IPR reforms
Supreme Court decisions in two cases pave way for IPR reforms