Law Commons^™

Since Congress’s enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the power and influence of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as an adjunct to (or substitute for) patent litigation has steadily grown. And just as the PTAB and district courts both face difficult questions of substantive patent law, many of the difficult jurisdictional and procedural issues that have presented in district court litigation have found counterparts in the PTAB, too. One category of such challenges regards the power of the PTAB to hear claims involving other governmental entities. Are the states immune from the power of the PTAB?

I conclude …

The most important determinant of a case’s chances for Supreme Court review is a circuit split: If two courts of appeals have decided the same issue differently, review is substantially more likely. But practically every appeal in a patent case makes its way to a single court—the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. How, then, does the Supreme Court decide whether to grant certiorari in a patent case?

The petitions for certiorari in the Court’s patent docket suggest an answer: The Supreme Court looks for splits anyway. These splits, however, are of a different sort. Rather than consider whether …

In 1999, the Supreme Court invoked state sovereign immunity to strike down provisions in the patent and trademark laws purporting to hold states liable for the infringement of these intellectual properties. These decisions ignited a series of criticisms, including allegations that sovereign immunity gives states an unfair advantage in the exercise of state-owned patent rights.

In particular, critics alleged two unfair advantages to state patentees. First, they alleged that states would favorably manipulate litigation. Second, they alleged that states would use their immunity from challenge to obtain broad patents or force private parties into licensing arrangements. An empirical study focusing …