United States: Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality Of Inter Partes Reviews

In a highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) authority to invalidate issued patents in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group. Writing for the majority in a 7-2 decision, Justice Thomas articulated how "the decision to grant a patent is a matter involving public rights...inter partes review is simply a reconsideration of that grant, and Congress has permissibly reserved the PTO's authority to conduct that reconsideration." Nearly 60 amicus briefs were submitted in Oil States, making it one of the most heavily watched and, in some respects, controversial patent case in recent years. The Court's decision will significantly impact the rights of intellectual property owners.

The America Invents Act And Inter Partes Review

Enacted in 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) overhauled key provisions contained in the U.S. Patent Act, which had last been amended in 1952. In particular, the AIA established inter partes review as an additional avenue for third-party challenges to the validity of a patent. The motivation behind the implementation of inter partes review proceedings included: (1) revitalizing post-issuance review procedures; (2) improving patent quality; and (3) providing IP owners with a mechanism to address non-practicing entity (NPE) patent enforcement of "weak" patents.

Before the AIA, the primary vehicle for challenging the validity of a patent was through litigation, either in response to a charge of infringement or a preemptive challenge under the Declaratory Judgment Act. The only alternative for companies to challenge a patent's validity outside of court, ex parte re-examination, suffered from a number of serious limitations that reduced its effectiveness. Re-examination (under the old version of the Patent Act) was slow, sometimes taking almost five years to reach a final determination. The proceedings, if the challenger's petition was granted, were entirely in the hands of the re-examination division, with no opportunity for the challenger to comment during the proceedings. This was believed to contribute to lower patent quality, an issue the creation of inter partes review sought to address.

Whether the implementation of inter partes review has helped promote innovation has been the subject of much debate over the past six years. While the PTAB was created to address concerns regarding the granting of undeserving or "weak" patents, the high rate at which the PTAB has invalidated patents has garnered it the reputation of a "patent death squad." Critics of the PTAB's inter partes review system have cited an increase in patent litigation, less certainty in the validity of a granted patent, and an overall higher cost of innovation.

The Supreme Court Decision

Oil States Energy Services, LLC's patent was challenged both in Federal Court and through inter partes review. While the District Court issued a claim construction ruling that favored Oil States, a parallel PTAB proceeding resulted in a decision that Oil States' patent was invalid. Oil States appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing that all patent's validity determinations should be tried in an Article III court, and that the PTAB's authority ran afoul of the Constitution. The Federal Circuit addressed these issues in a separate case, and subsequently affirmed the PTAB's decision, leading Oil States to petition the Supreme Court.

The principal question raised in Oil States is whether inter partes review by the PTAB violates the U.S. Constitution by revoking private property rights through non-Article III courts. On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision, including a 7-2 majority opinion written by Justice Thomas. Invoking the public-rights doctrine, United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576, the Court characterized patents as "public franchises" which Congress reserved for determination by "executive or legislative departments" without "judicial determination." The Court reasoned that inter partes review involves the same subject matter and public interests as the grant of a patent, and merely represents a "reconsideration of [the Patent Office's] grant" of a patent. Relying on previous Supreme Court authority (Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 and Louisville Bridge Co. v. United States, 242 U.S. 409), the Court held that issued patents remain subject to the PTAB's authority and may be cancelled outside of an Article III court.

The Court addressed Oil States' arguments by noting that even 18th-century English courts were not the only venue for cancellation, recognizing the practice of petitioning the Privy Council to vacate a patent, which the Court found closely resembled inter partes review. And the Court also rejected Oil States' analogy to private property rights cases decided under the Patent Act of 1870. The majority held that those early cases did not foreclose the authorization of post-issuance administrative review challenged by Oil States.

Finally, the Court also rejected Oil States' argument that inter partes review violates the Seventh Amendment, holding that "the Seventh Amendment poses no independent bar to the adjudication...by a nonjury factfinder" and preserving Congress' right to assign such matters to a non-Article III tribunal.

The minority opinion was written by Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Roberts, and stated that principles of judicial independence appreciated by the framers of the Constitution dictated a different conclusion than that reached by the majority. Justice Gorsuch also addressed the argument that perceived inefficiencies, which in his opinion are often vital, could be ignored in the Court's constitutionality analysis, stating "[t]he Constitution 'reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs,' and it is not our place to replace that judgment with our own."

Supreme Court Tells PTAB It Must Address Every Claim Challenged in A Petition

In addition to considering the constitutionality of AIA proceedings in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group during the October 2017 term, the Supreme Court also considered whether the AIA permits the PTAB to partially institute inter partes review proceedings (i.e. instituting on only some of the claims challenged in a petition) in SAS Institute v. Iancu. Writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision, Justice Gorsuch articulated that statute 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) requires the PTAB to address every claim challenged in a petition.

While certiorari was granted a few weeks before cert in Oil States, SAS Institute received little attention in the wake of Oil States – only two amicus briefs were filed compared to the nearly 60 in Oil States. However, SAS Institute has further reaching implications as it not only effects the PTAB's procedural practices buts raises a host of strategic questions for a petitioner given the estoppel impact of a final written decision on challenged claims.

The Supreme Court Decision

SAS filed an inter partes review petition of a ComplementSoft software patent. The patent included one independent claim and 15 dependent claims. In its petition, SAS alleged all 16 claims of the software patent were unpatentable for various reasons. The PTAB concluded that SAS was likely to succeed with respect to at least one of the challenged claims such that review was warranted. The PTAB instituted partial review for claims 1 and 3-10 while review of the remaining claims (dependent claims 11-16) was denied. The PTAB issued a final written decision finding that claims 1, 3, and 5-10 were unpatentable while upholding claim 4 as patentable. This prompted SAS to appeal to the Federal Circuit. At the Federal Circuit, SAS challenged the PTAB's failure to comply with § 318(a)'s requirement as SAS had challenged the patentability of all 16 claims but only received a final written decision as to nine claims. A divided panel at the Federal Circuit denied SAS's statutory challenge to the PTAB's partial-institution practice, and the full Federal Circuit denied SAS's request for en banc. SAS sought U.S. Supreme Court review on this issue, and in May 2017, the Supreme Court granted SAS's petition for certiorari.

The question raised in SAS Institute was does 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), which provides that the PTAB in an inter partes review "shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner," require that the PTAB issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged by the petitioner. On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision including a 5-4 majority written by J. Gorsuch joined by C.J. Roberts and J. Kennedy, Thomas and Alito.

In the decision, the majority found no basis for the PTAB to have discretion regarding "partial institution." Gorsuch provided a textual analysis of the provisions of the statue starting with the plain language of § 318(a), explaining that "the directive is both mandatory and comprehensive." Gorsuch's interpretation focused on the use of "shall" and "any" in the statue and concluded that the PTAB must address every claim the petitioner has challenged. The opinion also notes that, unlike in ex parte re-examination, "we see that Congress chose to structure a process in which it's the petitioner, not the Director, who gets to define the contours of the proceeding."

With regard to the slight differences in the language of § 314 and § 318, Gorsuch asserted that the majority "just don't see it," characterizing it as a "slight linguistic discrepancy," and rationalized that any differences between the claims challenged in the petition and the claims available for final written decision can be explained by the patent owner's ability to cancel or amend claims.

The majority also did not find the Director's policy argument regarding efficiency persuasive and stated "whatever its virtues or vices, Congress's prescribed policy here is clear: the petitioner in an inter partes review is entitled to a decision on all the claims it has challenged."


The Supreme Court's decision raises many unanswered questions and issues going forward. Whether this decision will have a retroactive effect on past decisions in PTAB proceedings is currently unknown. The Federal Circuit and the PTAB will need to address the impact to pending proceedings already subject to partial institutions. The PTAB may also rethink how its institution decisions are made. For example, as Justice Breyer eluded to in his dissent, this decision raises the possibility that the Board, rather than issue a final written decision on claims that do not rise to the "reasonable likelihood" standard will instead refuse to institute altogether. Petitioners and patent owners will also need to re-evaluate their respective strategies in light of SAS and any subsequent changes in the PTAB's practices. For example, SAS has enhanced the potential adverse consequences of the estoppel provisions under § 315(e). Because issuance of a final written decision triggers the estoppel provisions, petitioners will need to consider whether to file an AIA challenge more carefully. In some instances, petitioners may have an incentive to file more petitions per patent, while in others, not to challenge certain claims at all. Likewise, patent owners will likely adjust pre-institution strategies.

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
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
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