World IP Review reports
Inter partes reviews (IPRs) do not violate the US Constitution and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has authority to invalidate patents.
This is the holding of the US Supreme Court, which handed down its decision in Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group today.
In June last year, the court granted[1] Oil States' petition for certiorari.
Oil States, a provider of services to oil and gas companies, had claimed that the IPR process at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) violates the right to a jury in an Article III court (a federal court established under Article III of the US Constitution).
The service provider added that although in certain situations non-Article III tribunals may exercise jurisdiction over disputes involving "public rights", this doesn't apply to IPRs because patents are private property rights.
The Supreme Court asked the government to weigh in--Noel Francisco, the acting solicitor general, submitted a brief[1] on behalf of the US government in October 2017.
"Consistent with longstanding practice, the Patent Act authorises USPTO examiners within the executive branch to determine in the first instance whether patents should be granted. That allocation of authority is clearly constitutional", he said.
Siding with the US government, in a 7-2 opinion, the Supreme Court rejected Oil States' argument and found that patents are "public" rights, not "private" in an IPR context.
"The primary distinction between IPR and the initial grant of a patent is that IPR occurs after the patent has issued. But that distinction does not make a difference here", said the court.
[1] Paywall after first article, apparently.
Also at Ars Technica.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 25 2018, @06:09PM (1 child)
I'm getting a headache trying to figure out what you're actually arguing.
The Supreme Court didn't say that whatever wasn't a right. They just ruled on what type of right it is.
And since you seem to be arguing that anything you can physically do is a right (headache intensifying...), how could TSC possibly be wrong by your logic?
So you're arguing rights proceed from free will. I'd say it's more useful to argue that rights proceed from a collective agreement of society (often codified in law) of what they are, but hey.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 25 2018, @06:39PM
Exactly. Made the fuck up government enforced monopolies are not a "right". They can be an entitlement but they are not a right.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.