Patently Inconsistent: State and Tribal Sovereign Immunity in Inter Partes Review *

By Mixon, John | St. John's Law Review, Spring 2019 | Go to article overview

Patently Inconsistent: State and Tribal Sovereign Immunity in Inter Partes Review *


Mixon, John, St. John's Law Review


introduction

From 2016 to 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board ("PTAB" or the "Board"), an adjudicatory branch of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"),1 instituted five separate inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings against patents owned by various state universities.2 Upon instituting these proceedings, the universities all moved to dismiss the proceedings on state sovereign immunity grounds.3 While only three of these proceedings resulted in the dismissal of the state entities,4 the cumulative effect of the five proceedings was that state-owned patents are clearly insulated from IPR proceedings by state sovereign immunity so long as the state does not (1) bring a federal patent infringement suit or (2) transfer all substantive rights in the patent in question to a separate third party.5

Perhaps inspired by these developments, the pharmaceutical company Allergan adopted a noteworthy approach to the IPRs that were instituted against six of its patents on December 8, 2016.6 Attempting to avoid the proceedings, Allergan assigned all of its rights in the six patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, a federally recognized Indian tribe.7 The tribe then moved to dismiss the proceedings based on tribal sovereign immunity.8 However, in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (Mylan I), the PTAB found that unlike states, tribes could not use their sovereign immunity to avoid IPRs.9 The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's holding in Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Mylan II).10 As a result of these decisions, there was a brief inconsistency between how tribal sovereign immunity was treated and how state sovereign immunity was treated in IPR proceedings11 until the recent decision in Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corp.12 In that case, the Federal Circuit corrected course by holding that state sovereign immunity may not be applied in IPRs.13 Nonetheless, the Supreme Court can still potentially grant certiorari and reverse the Federal Circuit's decision, which would result in the inconsistency between state and tribal sovereign immunity in IPRs being revived.14

This Note is composed of four parts. Part I reviews the origins, development, and purpose of both tribal and state sovereign immunity, compares the two doctrines, and concludes that the two are functionally the same despite deriving from different historical roots. Part II provides an overview of the history and purpose behind the patent system, the America Invents Act, and IPRs. Part II also analyzes the constitutionality of IPRs, as decided by the Supreme Court in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC.15 Part III introduces and addresses the five IPR decisions on state sovereign immunity, Mylan I, and Mylan II. In addition, it discusses the PTAB's internal inconsistency in applying state and tribal sovereign immunity and the inconsistency between the PTAB's state sovereign immunity precedent and the Federal Circuit's rationale and holding in Mylan II. Finally, Part IV of this Note argues that (1) the Federal Circuit's Mylan II holding is correct; (2) policy implications dictate that sovereign immunity of either form should not apply in IPRs; and (3) if the Supreme Court grants ceriorari in LSI Corp., Mylan II's holding, as well as the LSI Corp. holding should be read to prohibit both state and tribal immunity equally because of the similarity between the two doctrines.

I. Tribal Sovereign Immunity Versus State Sovereign Immunity

A. The Origins, Development & Purpose of Tribal Sovereign Immunity

The doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity provides that Native American tribes recognized by the United States may not be subjected to lawsuits brought by states, private individuals, or private entities.16 Although this doctrine as we know it today is a creature of federal common law,17 it is nonetheless firmly engrained in the legal doctrine of the United States18 and has historical roots that date back to before the United States Constitution was ratified. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

Patently Inconsistent: State and Tribal Sovereign Immunity in Inter Partes Review *
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.