• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

McCarter & English Logo

  • People
  • Services
  • Insights
  • Our Firm
    • Leadership Team
    • Social Justice
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Client Service Values
  • Join Us
    • Lawyers
    • Summer Associates
    • Patent Professionals
    • Professional Staff
    • Job Openings
  • Locations
    • Boston
    • Philadelphia
    • East Brunswick
    • Stamford
    • Hartford
    • Trenton
    • Newark
    • Washington, DC
    • New York
    • Wilmington
  • Share

Share

Browse Alphabetically:

  • A
  • B
  • C
  • D
  • E
  • F
  • G
  • H
  • I
  • J
  • K
  • L
  • M
  • N
  • O
  • P
  • Q
  • R
  • S
  • T
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All
Bankruptcy, Restructuring & Litigation
Blockchain, Smart Contracts & Digital Currencies
Business Litigation
Cannabis
Coronavirus Resource Center
Corporate
Crisis Management
Cybersecurity & Data Privacy
Delaware Corporate, LLC & Partnership Law
Design, Fashion & Luxury
E-Discovery & Records Management
Energy & Utilities
Environment & Energy
Financial Institutions
Government Affairs
Government Contracts & Global Trade
Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
Healthcare
Immigration
Impact Investing
Insurance Recovery, Litigation & Counseling
Intellectual Property
Labor & Employment Law
Life Sciences
Manufacturing
Products Liability, Mass Torts & Consumer Class Actions
Proptech
Public Finance 
Real Estate
Renewable Energy
Sports & Entertainment
Tax & Employee Benefits 
Technology Transactions
Transportation, Logistics & Supply Chain Management
Trusts, Estates & Private Clients 
Venture Capital & Emerging Growth Companies
  • Broadcasts
  • Events
  • News
  • Publications
  • View All Insights
Search By:
Insights Publication Magazine Corner
Main image for Sovereign Immunity Does Not Shield State-Owned Patents from Inter Partes Review
Publications|Alert

Sovereign Immunity Does Not Shield State-Owned Patents from Inter Partes Review

Patent Alert

6.18.2019

States and their agencies, particularly state universities, are often parties to patent infringement litigation in federal courts. An increasingly common defense to infringement allegations is to ask the Patent Office to invalidate the asserted patent in an agency procedure known as an inter partes review (IPR). That is what happened when the University of Minnesota (a state school) sued several companies for patent infringement—two of the companies filed IPR petitions. In response, the University argued that, based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity, its patents are shielded from IPRs. The Federal Circuit—the appeals court in Washington, D.C., that decides all appeals from patent cases—disagreed. State entities may not wield their patents as swords while also shielding those same patents from Patent Office scrutiny in IPRs.

Background

The University of Minnesota moved to dismiss the IPR petitions on the theory that, as an arm of the State of Minnesota, sovereign immunity protected it from being involuntarily subjected to IPRs. The Patent Office denied the motion, holding that, in effect, the University waived sovereign immunity by asserting its patents in federal court.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed, relying on a previous case in which it held that tribal sovereign immunity did not shield the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe from review of its patents. In that previous case, the Federal Circuit reasoned that IPRs are unlike federal court litigation in one key respect and thus sovereign immunity did not apply. Specifically, sovereign immunity shields states from suits in federal courts and federal agencies initiated by private parties. But in IPRs, the decision to institute is left to a superior sovereign—the United States, acting through the Director of the Patent Office—rather than to a private party. To be sure, the Patent Office decides whether to institute an IPR based on information provided by a private party in its IPR petition. But it is still the Patent Office that ultimately decides whether to institute the IPR, not the private party who filed the petition.

Key Takeaways

The Federal Circuit’s decision means that state actors filing patent litigation will be treated just like private parties and thus can expect to have their patents challenged in IPRs and other Patent Office proceedings.

Interestingly, this decision comes just days after the Supreme Court decided in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service that the U.S. government—and presumably state governments as well—may not file IPR petitions to challenge patents owned by private parties. Thus, the two cases, taken together, create an odd dynamic in which states can have their patents challenged in IPRs but may not themselves challenge other parties’ patents in IPRs. Perhaps the Supreme Court will consider this discrepancy if the case is appealed to the Supreme Court. The case is Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corp., No. 2018-1559 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2019).

Sovereign Immunity Does Not Shield State-Owned Patents from Inter Partes ReviewDownload

sidebar

pdfemail

Related People

Media item: Erik Paul Belt
Erik Paul Belt

Partner

Media item: James J. Thomson
James J. Thomson

Associate

Related Services

Intellectual Property
Patents
Subscribe to our Insights
McCarter & English, LLP
Copyright © 2021 McCarter & English, LLP. All Rights Reserved.
  • Login
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Privacy
  • Awards Methodology
  • Contact
  • Subscribe
  • Sitemap

The McCarter & English, LLP website is for informational purposes only. We do not provide legal advice on this website. We can provide legal advice only to our clients in specific inquiries that they address to us. If you are interested in becoming a client, please contact us, but do not send any information about your specific legal question. We cannot serve as your lawyers until we establish an attorney-client relationship, which can occur only after we follow procedures within our firm and after we agree to the terms of the representation.

Accept Cancel