Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday April 25 2018, @11:02AM   Printer-friendly
from the now,-let's-look-at-some-of-those-dodgy-claims dept.

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.

Original Submission   Alternate Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by quacking duck on Thursday April 26 2018, @03:31PM

    by quacking duck (1395) on Thursday April 26 2018, @03:31PM (#672184)

    Eh, not quite. The privilege granted by the state is not "driving," it's "driving on public roads." There is a difference.

    You have every right to drive your own car on your own road, with no license, drunk as a skunk and with busted turn signals if you want.

    When the AC asked "Is the right to drive inate, or granted by the state through a driver's license?", it should've been clear that meant "public roads". NO ONE who's arguing in good faith about "right vs privilege to drive" is talking about driving on their own property, because the vast majority (80%) of the US population lives in urban areas [], so that drivable property is limited to at most a parking spot (if you own a spot in a building garage or lot), driveway or lawn (detached or semi-detached home).

    In any event, you're still wrong; what you are talking about is not in fact a "right to drive" but your umbrella right to do what you want on your own property as long as it doesn't harm/disturb others (as defined by law).

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2