## Facts

- Oil States Energy Services, LLC owned a patent covering technology to protect wellhead equipment used in hydraulic fracturing.
- Oil States sued Greene’s Energy Group, LLC for patent infringement in federal district court.
- While the infringement case was pending, Greene’s petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review (IPR) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 and also challenged validity in court.
- The district court issued a claim-construction order favorable to Oil States.
- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) nevertheless found several challenged patent claims unpatentable in light of prior art and cancelled them.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB and rejected Oil States’ constitutional challenges to IPR.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to whether IPR violates Article III and the Seventh Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether inter partes review, allowing the PTAB to cancel issued patent claims, violates Article III by assigning adjudication of private rights to a non-Article III tribunal.
2. Whether inter partes review violates the Seventh Amendment by extinguishing patent rights without a jury trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding 7–2 that inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment.
- The Court characterized issued patents, for these purposes, as public franchises whose grant and reconsideration may be entrusted to the political branches and their agencies.
- Because IPR is a public-rights proceeding, Congress may assign it to the PTO without requiring adjudication by an Article III court.
- The Seventh Amendment did not require a jury because, when Congress permissibly assigns a matter to a non-Article III tribunal, the Seventh Amendment does not independently bar decision by a nonjury factfinder.
- The Court emphasized the narrowness of the holding and stated it was not deciding whether patents are property for Due Process or Takings Clause purposes, nor other distinct constitutional questions.

## Legal Principles

- Patents may be treated as public franchises for Article III and Seventh Amendment analysis, permitting administrative reconsideration of patentability after issuance.
- The public-rights doctrine allows Congress to assign certain matters—closely tied to a federal regulatory scheme and the government’s grant of a franchise—to non-Article III adjudication.
- Procedural similarities between an administrative proceeding and civil litigation do not, by themselves, require Article III adjudication.
- If a matter is properly assigned to a non-Article III tribunal, the Seventh Amendment imposes no independent requirement of a jury trial in that proceeding.
- The constitutionality of IPR was upheld as a reconsideration of the government’s decision to grant a patent, with Article III review available on appeal.

## Conclusion

The Court held that inter partes review is a constitutional mechanism for the PTO to reexamine and cancel issued patent claims as a reconsideration of a public franchise, and that conducting this process in an agency forum without a jury does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment.


Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC, 584 U.S. 325 (2018)