`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
`INC., and AKORN INC.,1
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2016-01127 (8,685,930 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01128 (8,629,111 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01129 (8,642,556 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01130 (8,633,162 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01131 (8,648,048 B2)
`Case IPR2016-01132 (9,248,191 B2)
`
`
`BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN
`INDIANS, NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION, AND THE
`UNITED SOUTH AND EASTERN TRIBES IN SUPPORT OF PATENT
`HOLDER THE ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`1 Cases IPR2017-00576 and IPR2017-00594, IPR2017-00578 and IPR 2017-
`
`00596, IPR2017-00579 and IPR2017-00598, IPR2017-00583 and IPR2017-00599,
`
`IPR2017-00585 and IPR 2017-00600, and IPR2017-00586 and IPR2017-00601
`
`have respectively been joined with the captioned proceedings. The word-for-word
`
`identical paper is filed in each proceeding identified in the caption pursuant to the
`
`Board’s Scheduling Order.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2
`
`I.
`
`FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, AND FOREIGN SOVEREIGN
`IMMUNITY FROM SUIT SHARE THE SAME COMMON LAW ORIGIN
`AND GENERAL RULES OF INTERPRETATION ...................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Shared Common Law Origin ......................................................... 2
`
`The General Rules of Interpretation ...................................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Scope of Immunity ...................................................................... 7
`
`Immunity Waivers and Abrogation ............................................ 9
`
`II. BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAIVER OR ABROGATION APPLICABLE
`HERE, THE TRIBE IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT .......................................... 11
`
`III. ALTERNATIVELY, BEFORE DECIDING THE TRIBAL SOVEREIGN
`IMMUNITY ISSUE IN THIS IPR, THE BOARD SHOULD AWAIT
`FORTHCOMING GUIDANCE FROM THE SUPREME COURT AND
`CONGRESS .................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Alden v. Maine,
`
`527 U.S. 706 (1999)..................................................................................... 4, 6
`
`Allen v. Gold Country Casino,
`
`464 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2006) ......................................................................... 7
`
`Amerind Risk Mgmt Corp. v. Malaterre,
`
`633 F.3d 680 (8th Cir. 2011) ......................................................................... 12
`
`Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon,
`
`473 U.S. 234 (1985)....................................................................................... 10
`
`Berizzi Bros. Co. v. The Pesaro,
`
`271 U.S. 562 (1926)......................................................................................... 8
`
`Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak,
`
`501 U.S. 775 (1991)......................................................................................... 6
`
` C
`
` & L Enterprises v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla.,
`532 U.S. 411 (2001)................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`
`
`Cohens v. Virginia,
`
`19 U.S. 264 (1821)........................................................................................... 4
`
`Cty. of Suffolk v. First Am. Real Estate Solutions,
`
`261 F.3d 179 (2nd Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 14
`
`Dawavendewa v. Salt River Project Ag. Improvement and Power Dist.,
`
`276 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................................................................... 12
`
`F.D.I.C. v. Meyer,
`
`510 U.S. 471 (1994)......................................................................................... 7
`
`Fed. Maritime Comm’n v. S.C. State Ports Auth.,
`
`535 U.S. 743 (2002)......................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. SPI Spirits Ltd.,
`
`726 F.3d 62 (2nd Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 13
`
`Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. Coll. Sav. Bank,
`
`527 U.S. 627 (1999)..................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`Hans v. Louisiana,
`
`134 U.S. 1 (1890) ........................................................................................... 12
`
`Hill v. United States,
`
`50 U.S. 386 (1850)........................................................................................... 3
`
`The Home Bingo Network v. Multimedia Games, Inc.,
`
`2005 WL 2098056 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2005) .............................................. 14
`
`Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Technologies, Inc.,
`
`523 U.S. 751 (1998)............................................................................... 5, 8, 10
`
`Lane v. Pena,
`
`518 U.S. 187 (1996)......................................................................................... 9
`
`Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp.,
`
`337 U.S. 682 (1949)......................................................................................... 8
`
`Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty.,
`
`134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014) ................................................................................. 4, 5
`
`Microlog Corp. v. Cont’l Airlines,
`
`2011 WL 13141413 (E.D. Tex. July 22, 2011) ............................................. 14
`
`Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fortune Bay Resort Casino,
`
`688 F. Supp. 2d 858 (D. Minn. 2010) ............................................................. 8
`
`Oil States Energy Serv. v. Greene’s Energy Grp.,
`
`639 Fed. App’x. 639 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. granted, 85 U.S.L.W. 3575
`(U.S. June 12, 2017) (No. 16-712) ................................................................ 15
`
`
`Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla.,
`
`498 U.S. 505 (1991)....................................................................................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Parden v. Terminal Ry. of the Ala. State Docks Dep’t,
`
`377 U.S. 184 (1964)......................................................................................... 8
`
`Parks v. Ross,
`
`52 U.S. 362 (1850)........................................................................................... 5
`
`Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez,
`
`436 U.S. 49 (1978)..................................................................................... 6, 10
`
`Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians,
`
`2017 WL 1505329 (W.D. Mich. Apr. 27, 2017) ............................................. 9
`
`The Schooner Exchange v. McFadden,
`
`11 U.S. 116 (1812)........................................................................................... 4
`
`Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida,
`
`517 U.S. 44 (2006)......................................................................................... 12
`
`Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians v. Caballero,
`
`630 Fed. App’x. 708 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................. 13
`
`Sossamon v. Texas,
`
`563 U.S. 277 (2011)......................................................................................... 9
`
`Specialty House of Creation, Inc. v. Quapaw Tribe of Okla.,
`
`2011 WL 308903 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 27, 2011) ............................................... 14
`
`Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians v. Baca,
`
`No. 03-6363 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2005) ......................................................... 13
`
`United States ex rel. Cain v. Salish Kootenai College, Inc.,
`
`862 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 12
`
`United States v. Lee,
`
`106 U.S. 196 (1882)......................................................................................... 5
`
`United States v. McLemore,
`
`45 U.S. 286 (1846)........................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`United States v. Mitchell,
`
`463 U.S. 206 (1983)......................................................................................... 3
`
`United States v. Washington Mint, LLC,
`
`115 F.Supp.2d 1089 (D. Minn. 2000) ........................................................... 13
`
`Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo.,
`
`473 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ....................................................................... 8
`
`Wilson v. Umpqua Indian Dev’t Corp.,
`
`2017 WL 2838463 (D. Or. June 29, 2017) ...................................................... 9
`
`
`CONSTITUTIONS
`
`U.S. Constitution .................................................................................................. 6, 10
`
`
`STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1141n ........................................................................................ 13
`
`17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332 ...................................................................................... 13-14
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), 1602-1611 .......................................... 10
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 ............................................................................................ 9
`
`
`LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`
`S. 2299, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1998) ................................................................... 11
`
`S. 2302, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1998) ................................................................... 11
`
`S. 1948, 115th Cong., 1st Sess. (2017) .................................................................... 15
`
`S. 1390, 115th Cong., 1st Sess. (2017) .................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`ALEXANDER HAMILTON, THE FEDERALIST NO. 81, (Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961) ....... 2
`
`COHEN’S HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW (Nell Jessup Newton ed., 2012) ... 11
`
`Eric M. Dobrusin and Katherine E. White,
`Intell. Prop. Litig.: Pretrial Prac. (3rd ed. 2017) ......................................... 14
`
`
`Robert A. Matthews, Jr., 5 Annotated Patent Digest (2017) ................................... 14
`
`Joseph A. Larson, Taming the Wild West: An Examination of Private Student
`Consolidated Companies’ Violations of § 43(A) of the Lanham Act by Using
`Trade Names and Logos that Closely Resemble Those Used by the United
`States Department of Education, 41 Creighton L. Rev. 515 (2008) ............. 13
`
`
`Louis L. Jaffee, Suits Against Governments and Officers: Sovereign Immunity,
`
`77 HARV. L. REV. 1 (1963) .............................................................................. 2
`
`Tejas N. Narechania, An Offensive Weapon?: An Empirical Analysis of the
`“Sword” of State Sovereign Immunity in State-Owned Patents,
`110 Colum. L. Rev. 1574 (2010) ................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`Sharon K. Sandeen, Preserving the Public Trust in State-Owned Intellectual
`Property: A Recommendation for Legislative Action,
`32 McGeorge L. Rev. 385 (2001)............................................................ 12, 13
`
`
`
`William Wood, It Wasn’t an Accident: the Tribal Sovereign Immunity Story,
`
`62 AM. U. L. REV. 1587 (2013) ................................................................... 4, 5
`
`National Conference of State Legislatures, State Legislation Concerning State
`Liability and Sovereign Immunity (2010),
`http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/StateImmunityLeg0810.pdf .. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
`
`The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), National Indian
`
`Gaming Association (NIGA), and the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET) are
`
`leading Native American organizations that share an interest in protecting Tribal
`
`self-government and self-sufficiency. NCAI is the oldest and largest American
`
`Indian organization in the United States, representing more than 250 Indian Tribes
`
`and Alaska Native villages. NCAI’s mission includes informing the public and all
`
`branches of the federal government about tribal self-government, treaty rights, and
`
`a broad range of federal policy issues affecting Tribal governments. NIGA is a
`
`non-profit organization with 168 member Tribes that authorize and operate Tribal
`
`casinos. NIGA endeavors to assist Tribes in their efforts to build and maintain
`
`strong and self-sufficient Tribal governments, and to support Tribal governments
`
`in pursuing all forms of economic opportunity to provide a better quality of life for
`
`their citizens. USET is an intertribal organization comprised of 27 federally-
`
`recognized Indian Tribes in the southern and eastern United States. USET works to
`
`educate federal, state, and local governments about the unique historical and
`
`political status of its member Tribes.
`
`Pursuant to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Order, 2017 WL 5067421
`
`(P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 2017), amici submit this brief to assist the Board in
`
`understanding the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity from suit, and that
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`doctrine’s commonalities with the immunity from suit of the federal, state and
`
`foreign governments. Absent contrary direction from Congress, the doctrine and
`
`its concomitant principles and rules should govern the Board’s analysis of tribal
`
`sovereign immunity in this inter partes review (IPR) proceeding; however, because
`
`new guidance on IPR likely is forthcoming from the Supreme Court, and possibly
`
`from Congress, the Board should strongly consider awaiting that guidance before
`
`addressing the issue of tribal sovereign immunity in this proceeding
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`I.
`
`FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, AND FOREIGN SOVEREIGN
`IMMUNITY FROM SUIT SHARE THE SAME COMMON LAW
`ORIGIN AND GENERAL RULES OF INTERPRETATION
`
`A. The Shared Common Law Origin
`
`Neither federal nor state sovereign immunity from suit is derived from the
`
`U.S. Constitution. Such sovereign immunity is rooted in the English common law
`
`of the Middle Ages, which recognized as settled doctrine that the King could not
`
`be sued eo nomine in his own courts. See Louis L. Jaffee, Suits Against
`
`Governments and Officers: Sovereign Immunity, 77 HARV. L. REV. 1, 2 (1963).
`
`Although the United States’ Founders rejected the King, they nevertheless
`
`considered immunity from suit without consent to be “inherent in the nature of
`
`sovereignty.” ALEXANDER HAMILTON, THE FEDERALIST NO. 81, 548-49 (Jacob E.
`
`Cooke ed., 1961). This axiomatic understanding – not the Constitution – guided the
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Supreme Court’s earliest sovereign immunity cases, forming the common law in
`
`this country applicable to all sovereigns: federal, state, tribal, and foreign.
`
`An early announcement of federal sovereign immunity by the Court was in
`
`United States v. McLemore, which held – as a fundamental principle, without
`
`citation to any authority – that “[t]here was no jurisdiction of this case in the
`
`Circuit Court, as the government is not liable to be sued, except with its own
`
`consent, given by law.” 45 U.S. 286, 288 (1846). Four years later, the Court again
`
`cited no authority when it announced, “No maxim is thought to be better
`
`established, or more universally assented to, than that which ordains that a
`
`sovereign, or a government representing the sovereign, cannot ex delicto be
`
`amenable to its own creatures or agents employed under its own authority for the
`
`fulfillment merely of its own legitimate ends.” Hill v. United States, 50 U.S. 386,
`
`389 (1850). Thereafter, the Court routinely has treated sovereign immunity as an
`
`established doctrine. E.g., United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983) (“It
`
`is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its consent and that the
`
`existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction”).
`
`Likewise, early articulations of state sovereign immunity by the Court
`
`treated it as an accepted legal principle, not one derived from the Constitution.
`
`The first time the Court relied on state sovereign immunity to dismiss a suit, it did
`
`not find it necessary to identify any authority for the doctrine. “The … general
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`proposition [is] that a sovereign independent State is not suable, except by its own
`
`consent. This general proposition will not be controverted.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19
`
`U.S. 264, 380 (1821) (Marshall, C.J. delivering the opinion of the Court). Thus,
`
`immunity from suit for federal and state governments is an underlying legal
`
`assumption – a recognition that it is a fundamental, inherent aspect of sovereignty.
`
`See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999).
`
`Foreign governments also generally possess common law immunity in the
`
`United States (although Congress can and has acted to abrogate it in particular
`
`circumstances). The Court recognized this rule in The Schooner Exchange v.
`
`McFadden, and relied on principles for diplomatic immunity and national dignity,
`
`holding simply that “the whole civilized world concurred” in these principles. 11
`
`U.S. 116, 137 (1812) (Marshall, C.J. delivering the opinion of the Court). The
`
`Court “offered no explanation for these principles beyond the ‘perfect equality and
`
`absolute independence of sovereigns’ and a ‘common interest impelling them to
`
`mutual intercourse.’” William Wood, It Wasn’t an Accident: the Tribal Sovereign
`
`Immunity Story, 62 AM. U. L. REV. 1587, 1612 (2013).
`
`Tribal sovereign immunity from suit shares these same common law origins.
`
`As “separate sovereigns pre-existing the Constitution,” Michigan v. Bay Mills
`
`Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2030 (2014) (Kagan, J., delivering the opinion of
`
`the Court) (citation omitted), and expressly recognized in the Constitution, Indian
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`tribes were understood to be “among the family of sovereigns” – nations with their
`
`own governments and laws, capable of entering into treaties with the United States.
`
`Wood, supra, at 1611. “Indian tribes are domestic dependent nations that exercise
`
`inherent sovereign authority.” Michigan, 134 S. Ct. at 2030 (internal quotations
`
`and citations omitted). A core aspect of this sovereignty is the “common-law
`
`immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers.” Id. (citation
`
`omitted). Although at times it has voiced policy concerns, the Court has
`
`recognized and upheld tribal sovereign immunity for “well over a century,”
`
`Michigan, 345 S. Ct. at 2040 (Sotomayor, J., concurring), citing, inter alia, Parks
`
`v. Ross, 52 U.S. 362 (1850), as “a necessary corollary to Indian sovereignty and
`
`self-governance.” 345 S. Ct. at 2030 (citations omitted).2
`
`
`2 The Court’s observation that tribal sovereign immunity from suit arose “almost
`
`by accident,” Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 756
`
`(1998), echoes the Court’s earlier observation about federal and state sovereign
`
`immunity. “[W]hile the exemption of the United States and of the several states
`
`from being subjected as defendants to ordinary actions in the courts has . . . been
`
`repeatedly asserted here, the principle has never been discussed or the reasons for
`
`it given, but it has always been treated as established doctrine.” United States v.
`
`Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 207 (1882) (citations omitted). Thus, any possible arguments
`
`against sovereign immunity’s origins are applicable equally to all governments.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Nor does the Eleventh Amendment elevate state sovereign immunity over
`
`tribal sovereign immunity. The Court has made clear that state sovereign immunity
`
`does not derive from the Eleventh Amendment, but is a fundamental aspect of
`
`sovereignty that states enjoyed before ratification of the Constitution. Alden, 527
`
`U.S. at 713. The Court’s observation regarding tribal sovereign immunity is
`
`similar: “As separate powers pre-existing the Constitution, tribes have historically
`
`been regarded as unconstrained by those constitutional provisions framed
`
`specifically as limitations on federal or state authority … [and] tribes have long
`
`been recognized as possessing the common-law immunity from suit traditionally
`
`enjoyed by sovereign powers.” Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 56,
`
`58 (1978); see also Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 782
`
`(1991) (“We have repeatedly held that Indian tribes enjoy immunity against suits
`
`by States as it would be absurd to suggest that the tribes surrendered immunity in a
`
`convention to which they were not even parties”) (citation omitted).3
`
`In sum, tribal sovereign immunity from suit stands on an equal footing with
`
`the immunity from suit of other sovereigns. The law long ago recognized immunity
`
`
`3 Further, the Constitution does not mention the Federal government’s immunity
`
`from suit. Thus, any reliance on the Eleventh Amendment to buttress a perceived
`
`weakness in authority for tribal sovereign immunity also undermines federal
`
`sovereign immunity and elevates State sovereignty above the federal government.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`from suit as a fundamental aspect of sovereignty. Our domestic law recognizes
`
`federal, state, and tribal governments as sovereigns, and our courts likewise
`
`acknowledge their immunity from suit relying on commonly understood legal
`
`principles applicable equally to all sovereigns.
`
`B. The General Rules Of Interpretation
`
`
`
`Just as the doctrinal origins of sovereign immunity from suit are the same for
`
`federal, state, tribal and foreign governments, absent contrary direction from
`
`Congress, the general rules for interpreting such immunity are the same for all
`
`governments. These rules include those for determining the immunity’s scope, and
`
`whether the immunity has been waived or abrogated.
`
`1. Scope of Immunity
`
`
`
`
` Sovereign immunity from suit applies not just to a government itself, but
`
`also to arms of the government. See F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994)
`
`(federal agencies are entitled to sovereign immunity unless waived by Congress);
`
`see also Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. Coll. Sav. Bank, 527
`
`U.S. 627, 630-635 (1999) (state instrumentalities are entitled to sovereign
`
`immunity unless such immunity is waived or abrogated); Allen v. Gold Country
`
`Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006) (tribal sovereign immunity extends to
`
`arms, agencies, and subdivisions of the tribe) (citations omitted).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Sovereign immunity from suit applies to a government’s commercial entities
`
`and conduct. This is true for the federal government, see, e.g., Larson v. Domestic
`
`& Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 704 (1949); states, see, e.g., Parden v.
`
`Terminal Ry. of the Ala. State Docks Dep’t, 377 U.S. 184, 185-188 (1964),
`
`overruled on other grounds, Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527
`
`U.S. at 680; tribes, see e.g., Kiowa Tribe, 523 U.S. at 754-55, 760; and, foreign
`
`governments, see, e.g., Berizzi Bros. Co. v. The Pesaro, 271 U.S. 562, 569-70, 574
`
`(1926).
`
`Sovereign immunity from suit applies not only in courts, but also in federal
`
`administrative fora at least with respect to claims brought by private parties. See
`
`Fed. Maritime Comm’n v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 760 (2002) (“state
`
`sovereign immunity bars the [Commission] from adjudicating complaints filed by
`
`a private party against a nonconsenting State”); accord Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Curators
`
`of the Univ. of Mo., 473 F.3d 1376, 1380-1384 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (state’s
`
`entitlement to sovereign immunity waived by state with regard to patent at issue by
`
`initiating an action before the Patent and Trademark Office); see also Nat’l Labor
`
`Relations Bd. v. Fortune Bay Resort Casino, 688 F. Supp. 2d 858, 871 (D. Minn.
`
`2010) (in federal agency proceeding, distinguishing tribal sovereign immunity
`
`from suit vis-à-vis claims by the federal government from claims by private
`
`litigants).
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`2. Immunity Waivers and Abrogation
`
`“A waiver of the Federal Government's sovereign immunity must be
`
`unequivocally expressed in statutory text and will not be implied.” Lane v. Pena,
`
`518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (citations omitted). “Moreover, a waiver of the
`
`Government’s sovereign immunity will be strictly construed, in terms of its scope,
`
`in favor of the sovereign.” Id. (citation omitted). These rules apply equally to
`
`waivers of state and tribal sovereign immunity. Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277,
`
`285 (2011) (state sovereign immunity); C & L Enterprises v. Citizen Band
`
`Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 532 U.S. 411, 418 (2001) (tribal sovereign immunity).
`
`A common way that all three governments waive their immunity in a general
`
`fashion is through torts claims acts. See, e.g., Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 2671-2680; National Conference of State Legislatures, State Legislation
`
`Concerning
`
`State
`
`Liability
`
`and
`
`Sovereign
`
`Immunity
`
`(2010),
`
`http://www.ncsl.org/documents/transportation/StateImmunityLeg0810.pdf
`
`(summary of state tort claims acts); Wilson v. Umpqua Indian Dev’t Corp., 2017
`
`WL 2838463 (D. Or. June 29, 2017) (discussing tribal tort claims code); accord
`
`Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 2017 WL 1505329 (W.D. Mich. Apr.
`
`27, 2017). Governments also routinely waive immunity in specific contracts and
`
`business transactions. See, e.g., C & L Enters., 532 U.S. at 418-19 (tribal
`
`immunity waived in construction contract).
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`In addition to immunity waivers, Congress possesses the authority to
`
`abrogate tribal, state, and foreign sovereign immunity. For example, Congress has
`
`abrogated foreign sovereign immunity for suits arising from specific types of
`
`activity in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330,
`
`1332, 1391(f), 1441(d), 1602-1611.
`
`In limited circumstances, Congress may abrogate state sovereign immunity,
`
`but it must state its intention to do so expressly and unambiguously. See
`
`Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 238, 242 (1985) (Congress may
`
`abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth
`
`Amendment, “only by making its intention unmistakably clear in the language of
`
`the statute”). Similarly, Congress may abrogate tribal sovereign immunity;
`
`however, such abrogation “cannot be implied, but must be unequivocally
`
`expressed.” Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58; accord C & L Enters., 532 U.S.
`
`at 418.
`
`Importantly, because abrogation of tribal sovereign immunity from suit
`
`involves a careful balancing of interests and policy, the Court consistently has left
`
`such balancing to Congress. See Kiowa Tribe, 523 U.S. at 760. Equally important,
`
`overall, Congress has taken a careful and considered approach to this task. Since
`
`at least 1891, Congress has enacted specific abrogations of tribal sovereign
`
`immunity in a variety of contexts, including certain property claims, specific types
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`of Indian gaming disputes, and particular federal environmental laws. See
`
`COHEN’S HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW §7.05(1)(b) (Nell Jessup Newton
`
`ed., 2012). But sweeping abrogations of tribal sovereign immunity, e.g., S. 2299,
`
`105th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1998); S. 2302, 105th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1998), have been
`
`rejected in favor of more measured and specific decisions which “reflect Congress’
`
`desire to promote the goal of Indian self-government, including its overriding goal
`
`of encouraging tribal self-sufficiency and economic development.” Okla. Tax
`
`Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 510
`
`(1991) (citations and internal quotations omitted). The fact that Congress
`
`repeatedly has chosen not to enact a general tribal sovereign immunity from suit
`
`waiver shows Congress’ consistent treatment of that immunity on a par with such
`
`immunity of other governments.
`
`II. BECAUSE THERE
`IS NO WAIVER OR ABROGATION
`APPLICABLE HERE, THE TRIBE IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT
`
`
`
`Under the well-established parity of tribes with other governments regarding
`
`the origin of and rules of interpretation for immunity from suit, the Tribe here is
`
`immune from suit. Essentially, the analysis of an assertion of sovereign immunity
`
`by a tribe in an IPR is no different than for such an assertion by a state. As one
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals recently aptly and succinctly held, in determining questions
`
`of sovereign immunity, “Indian tribes as sovereign entities …are entitled to the
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`same interpretive presumption[s] as States.” United States ex rel. Cain v. Salish
`
`Kootenai College, Inc., 862 F.3d 939, 942-943 (9th Cir. 2017).
`
`Thus, the Tribe’s immunity here is presumed, based on its sovereignty. See
`
`Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 85 (2006) (Stevens, J, dissenting)
`
`(discussing “the common-law presumption of sovereign immunity” as set forth in
`
`Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)). The burden is on the party challenging the
`
`immunity to show either a waiver or an abrogation by Congress or the tribe, and
`
`such waiver or abrogation must be express and unequivocal. Amerind Risk Mgmt
`
`Corp. v. Malaterre, 633 F.3d 680, 685-686 (8th Cir. 2011). Absent the requisite
`
`express and unequivocal waiver, the tribe is immune from suit. Dawavendewa v.
`
`Salt River Project Ag. Improvement and Power Dist., 276 F.3d 1150, 1159 (9th
`
`Cir. 2002).
`
`While an assertion of immunity from suit by a tribe in an IPR may be a
`
`novel issue, it is in accord with the natural course of events in the larger picture.
`
`Absent prohibition by Congress, tribes, like other governments, have ventured into
`
`the intellectual property arena for many of the same political, social and economic
`
`reasons as other governments. See generally Sharon K. Sandeen, Preserving the
`
`Public Trust in State-Owned Intellectual Property: A Recommendation for
`
`Legislative Action, 32 McGeorge L. Rev. 385, 395 (2001) (“states can and do own
`
`intellectual property rights in various forms”). States “enjoy the benefits of
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`[intellectual property] laws … and have a strong public policy interest in
`
`preventing” infringement, dilution, and other violations of the rights they hold
`
`under such laws. Id. at 389.
`
`Tribal governments today hold trademarks as do the federal, state and
`
`foreign governments. See Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians v. Caballero,
`
`630 Fed. App’x. 708 (9th Cir. 2015) (tribe owns trademarks registered under the
`
`Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1141n); see generally Joseph A. Larson, Taming
`
`the Wild West: An Examination of Private Student Consolidated Companies’
`
`Violations of § 43(A) of the Lanham Act by Using Trade Names and Logos that
`
`Closely Resemble Those Used by the United States Department of Education, 41
`
`Creighton L. Rev. 515 (2008); Sandeen, supra, at 410 (discussing state-owned
`
`trademarks); Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. SPI Spirits Ltd., 726 F.3d
`
`62 (2nd Cir. 2013) (Russian government chartered entity holds Lanham Act
`
`registered trademark for vodka).
`
`Tribal governments hold copyrights, as do other governments. See
`
`Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians v. Baca, No. 03-6363 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 14,
`
`2005) (stipulation and order entering a permanent injunction against defendant
`
`based on tribe’s copyright claims under federal and state law to its traditional songs
`
`and dances); United States v. Washington Mint, LLC, 115 F.Supp.2d 1089 (D.
`
`Minn. 2000) (under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332, federal government
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`held valid copyright in coin design assigned to it by private citizen who created it);
`
`Cty. of Suffolk v. First Am. Real Estate Solutions, 261 F.3d 179, 187 (2nd Cir.
`
`2001) (states may hold copyrights under the Copyright Act).
`
`While patent holdings by tribes may be relatively more recent, they are
`
`preceded by considerable and increasing holdings of patents by states and their
`
`entities. See generally Tejas N. Narechania, An Offensive Weapon?: An Empirical
`
`Analysis of the “Sword” of State Sovereign Immunity in