United States: Oil States Paves Way For More IPR Filings, But Leaves Some Uncertainty

On April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group, 138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018), holding that inter partes review proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office do not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In so doing, the court left other questions open.

To provide some background: IPRs provide an administrative forum within the PTO where third parties can challenge the validity of an issued patent. The administrative tribunal, established in 2012, bears the moniker Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Since 2012, IPRs have grown in popularity, most likely because they are faster and less expensive than federal district court challenges to patent validity.

April's decision answered certain questions that were percolating in the patent community, and practitioners are already responding.

IPRs are Constitutional in View of Challenges Oil States Raised

In Oil States, the court considered only the two constitutional challenges to IPRs raised in the case.

The first question addressed was whether IPRs violate the constitutional requirement of separation of powers because administrative patent judges, rather than Article III judges, decide IPRs. The second was whether IPRs violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial because IPRs do not involve juries. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion, answering "no" to both questions.

The court held that IPRs do not violate the separation-of-powers requirement because "inter partes review falls squarely within the public-rights doctrine," giving Congress "significant latitude to assign adjudication ... to entities other than Article III courts." Because the America Invents Act includes such an assignment to administrative law judges within the Patent Office, the high court upheld the practice.

The court distinguished its prior rulings referring to patents as a private right by saying the precedent was limited to the statutory scheme in existence at the time of those decisions. The court noted that, in contrast to the AIA, the 1870 Patent Act "did not include any provision for post-issuance administrative review." Moreover, the court held that a patent is a "public franchise" that "can confer only the rights that [a] statute prescribes." The Patent Act provides that "patents shall have the attributes of personal property" but "subject to the provisions of this title," which provides for IPR proceedings. Finally, the court rejected the dissent's contention that the IPR process "violates the 'general' principle that 'Congress may not' withdraw from judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty,'" pointing out that the English system included a Privy Council that had exclusive authority to revoke patents.

The court summarily found that the Seventh Amendment challenge was resolved by its rejection of Oil States' Article III challenge because "when Congress properly assigns a matter to adjudication in a non-Article III tribunal, the Seventh Amendment poses no independent bar to the adjudication of that action by a nonjury fact-finder."

The majority took pains to emphasize the narrowness of its holding, stating "we address only the precise constitutional challenges that Oil States raised here." Oil States did not raise a challenge to "the retroactive application of inter partes review," and it did not assert a due process violation.

The Practical Impact: IPRs on the Rise

There are some indications the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in Oil States led to a decrease in IPR filings. Since the decision, however, IPRs seem to be on the rise once again. With IPRs off the chopping block, litigants are likely to favor this administrative option for attacking patent validity: IPRs are faster, less expensive and less likely to result in settlement than district court proceedings.

Table 1 presents the average number of new IPRs filed per day from the date of the decision, April 24, to June 30, and compares this period with similar periods in the previous two years. While many factors play into a decision to file, this data tells a story.

Before the June 12, 2017, decision to grant certiorari in Oil States, IPRs were gaining in popularity, as shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. Around the time the Supreme Court granted certiorari, the popularity of IPRs fell. The filing frequency later remained fairly level until, following the decision in Oil States, IPRs began to pick up once again. It is too early to tell, but if this trend continues, the number of new filings will soon reach early 2017 levels.

Some Uncertainty Remains: The Court Expressly Left Open Challenges

Nevertheless, after Oil States, the possibility remains for a constitutional challenge to IPRs, as well as post-grant reviews and covered business method reviews.

The court expressly stated that it "address[ed] the constitutionality of inter partes review only," leaving room for future challenges to both PGR and CBM. The court also expressly stated that it addressed only "the precise constitutional challenges that Oil States raised here."

The majority opinion specifically identified two potential constitutional challenges not raised in this case:

  • "Oil States does not challenge the retroactive application of inter partes review, even though that procedure was not in place when its patent issued."
  • "Oil States [does not] raise a due process challenge."

The court went on to caution that "our decision should not be misconstrued as suggesting that patents are not property for purposes of the due process clause or the takings clause." The dissent, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, raised this issue, citing McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. Aultman, 169 U.S. 606, 612 (1898), to argue that "allowing the executive to withdraw a patent "would be to deprive the applicant of his property without due process of law, and would be in fact an invasion of the judicial branch of the government by the executive." No doubt, these issues will arise in future cases.

The sense in the profession is that PTAB judges are acutely aware of the concerns the justices raised and are working to quell them. For example, it appears the PTAB is now more willing to grant parties additional briefing, especially where denying that briefing might raise an issue vis-à-vis the due process clause or Administrative Procedure Act.

Originally published by Westlaw Journal Intellectual Property.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions