The U.S. Supreme Court denied writ of certiorari in Christy v. US (2021), declining to consider a constitutional challenge under the Fifth Amendment’s “Takings Clause” to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) post-grant review proceedings.
This leaves in place decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as controlling law. Consequently, this article reviews Takings Clause-based constitutional challenges to America Invents Act (AIA) post-grant proceedings.
The AIA established three new post-grant review proceedings: inter partes reviews (IPRs), covered business method reviews (CBMRs), and post-grant reviews (PGRs).
These proceedings allow the PTAB to review the patentability of one or more issued patent claims challenged by a petitioner. IPR proceedings have proved to be a popular tool for petitioners, often used in response to a patent infringement litigation. More than 12,000 IPR petitions have been filed since IPRs first became available.
In Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group (2018) the U.S. Supreme Court held that IPR “falls squarely within the public-rights doctrine,” that patents are “public franchises,” and that IPR proceedings do not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment. The court, however, “emphasi[s]e[d] the narrowness of [its] holding” and cautioned that its “decision should not be misconstrued as suggesting that patents are not property for purposes of the due process clause or the Takings Clause.”
Excerpted from World IP Review. To read the full article, click here.
This leaves in place decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as controlling law. Consequently, this article reviews Takings Clause-based constitutional challenges to America Invents Act (AIA) post-grant proceedings.
The AIA established three new post-grant review proceedings: inter partes reviews (IPRs), covered business method reviews (CBMRs), and post-grant reviews (PGRs).
These proceedings allow the PTAB to review the patentability of one or more issued patent claims challenged by a petitioner. IPR proceedings have proved to be a popular tool for petitioners, often used in response to a patent infringement litigation. More than 12,000 IPR petitions have been filed since IPRs first became available.
In Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group (2018) the U.S. Supreme Court held that IPR “falls squarely within the public-rights doctrine,” that patents are “public franchises,” and that IPR proceedings do not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment. The court, however, “emphasi[s]e[d] the narrowness of [its] holding” and cautioned that its “decision should not be misconstrued as suggesting that patents are not property for purposes of the due process clause or the Takings Clause.”
Excerpted from World IP Review. To read the full article, click here.