`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE, ALLERGAN, INC.,
`Appellants
`
`v.
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., TEVA PHARMA-
`CEUTICALS USA, INC., AND AKORN, INC,
`Appellees
`
`
`Nos. 18-1638, 18-1639, 18-1640, 18-1641, 18-1642, 18-1643
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial
`and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-01127, IPR2016-01128,
`IPR2016-01129, IPR2016-01130, IPR2016-01131, IPR2016-01132,
`IPR2017-00576, IPR2017-00578, IPR2017-00579, IPR2017-00583,
`IPR2017-00585, IPR2017-00586, IPR2017-00594, IPR2017-00596,
`IPR2017-00598, IPR2017- 00599, IPR2017-00600, IPR2017-00601
`
`
`BRIEF OF THE STATES OF INDIANA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS,
`MASSACHUSETTS, TEXAS, UTAH, AND VIRGINIA AS
`AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF EN BANC REHEARING
`
`
`Office of the Attorney General
`302 West Washington Street
`IGCS 5th Floor
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
`(317) 232-6255
`Tom.Fisher@atg.in.gov
`
`
`CURTIS T. HILL, JR.
`Attorney General of Indiana
`THOMAS M. FISHER
`Solicitor General*
`KIAN J. HUDSON
`Deputy Attorney General
`
`Counsel for Amici States
`Additional counsel listed with signature block
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 1
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 2 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for Amicus Curiae certifies the following:
`
`1.
`
`The full names of every party represented by me are:
`
` The States of Indiana, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas,
`Utah, and Virginia
`
`2.
`
`The names of the real parties in interest represented by me are:
`
` The States of Indiana, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas,
`Utah, and Virginia
`
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own
`3.
`10 percent of the stock of the parties represented by me are:
`
` None. The amicus curiae are sovereign States.
`
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that ap-
`4.
`peared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court
`or agency or are expected to appear in this Court (and who have not or
`will not enter an appearance in this case) are:
`
` None.
`
`The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in
`5.
`this or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be directly
`affected by this court’s decision in the pending appeal:
`
` Allergan, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.,
`No. 2018-1130 (Fed. Cir.)
`
` Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation,
`No. 2018-1559 (Fed. Cir.)
`
` Allergan, Inc. v. Deva Holding A.S.,
`No. 2:16-cv-1447 (E.D. Tex.)
`
` Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation,
`No. 5:18-cv-00821 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`
`
`i
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 2
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 3 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
` Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.,
`No. 3:17-cv-06056 (N.D. Cal.)
`
` Regents of the University of Minnesota v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`No. 0:14-cv-04666 (D. Minn.)
`
` Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Sprint Solutions, Inc.,
`No. 0:14-cv-04669 (D. Minn.)
`
` Regents of the University of Minnesota v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 0:14-cv-04671 (D. Minn.)
`
` Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Cellco Partnership,
`No. 0:14-cv-04672 (D. Minn.)
`
` Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`No. IPR2017-01753 (P.T.A.B.)
`
` Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`No. IPR2017-01712 (P.T.A.B.)
`
` Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`No. IPR2017-02004 (P.T.A.B.)
`
` Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`No. IPR2017-02005 (P.T.A.B.)
`
` Ericsson Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`No. IPR2017-01186 (P.T.A.B.)
`
` Ericsson Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`No. IPR2017-01197 (P.T.A.B.)
`
` Ericsson Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`No. IPR2017-01200 (P.T.A.B.)
`
` Ericsson Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`No. IPR2017-01213 (P.T.A.B.)
`
` Ericsson Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`No. IPR2017-01214 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`ii
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 3
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 4 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
` Ericsson Inc. v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`No. IPR2017-01219 (P.T.A.B.)
`
` LSI Corporation v. Regents of the University of Minnesota,
`No. IPR2017-01068 (P.T.A.B.)
`
`Date: September 4, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Thomas M. Fisher
`
`iii
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 4
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 5 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ................................................................. i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... v
`
`AMICI’S STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST ...................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................... 3
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 5
`
`I.
`
`Eliminating State Sovereign Immunity in Inter Partes Review
`Would Seriously Harm States .......................................................... 5
`
`
`A. Permitting private parties to force States into IPR would
`offend States’ sovereign dignity .............................................. 5
`
`
`
`B. Excluding sovereign immunity from IPR would jeopardize
`the substantial, publicly beneficial revenues generated by
`public universities’ intellectual property ................................ 6
`
`
`II. The Panel’s Decision Misapplies FMC ............................................ 8
`
`
`A. Inter partes review is not a proceeding brought by the
`federal government ................................................................. 9
`
`
`
`B. The existence of sovereign immunity does not turn on
`minor procedural similarities ............................................... 13
`
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 15
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................ 17
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................. 18
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 5
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 6 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Alden v. Maine,
`527 U.S. 706 (1999) ........................................................................... 6, 9
`
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee,
`136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016) .......................................................................... 11
`
`Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports
`Authority,
`535 U.S. 743 (2002) ..................................................................... passim
`
`Kashani v. Purdue University,
`813 F.2d 843 (7th Cir. 1987) ................................................................. 5
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., (8,629,111 B2), 2018 WL
`1100950, at *3 (Feb. 23, 2018) .............................................................. 2
`
`Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group,
`LLC,
`138 S.Ct. 1365 (2018) .................................................................... 10, 11
`
`SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018) ......................................................................... 10
`
`Xechem International, Inc. v. University of Tex. M.D.
`Anderson Cancer Center,
`382 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................. 8
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 141 ........................................................................................ 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................ 14
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 ........................................................................................ 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ........................................................................................ 11
`
`v
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 6
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 7 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b) ................................................................................. 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73 ..................................................................................... 14
`
`Dave Merrill, Blacki Migliozzi & Susan Decker, Billions at
`Stake in University Patent Fights, Bloomberg (May 24,
`2016), https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-
`university-patents/. ............................................................................... 7
`
`Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a) ............................................... 1
`
`Ind. Univ., Intellectual Property Policy,
`https://policies.iu.edu/files/policy-pdfs/ua-05-intellectual-
`property.pdf ........................................................................................... 8
`
`Indiana University Research and Technology Corp. Reports
`$7.03 Million in Revenue in 2015-16, IU Newsroom (Sept.
`21, 2016), http://archive.news.iu.edu/releases/2016/09/
`iurtc-revenue-2015-16.shtml ................................................................ 7
`
`National Academy of Inventors, Top 100 Worldwide
`Universities Granted U.S. Utility Patents in 2016,
`http://www.academyofinventors.com/pdf/top-100-
`universities-2016.pdf ............................................................................ 5
`
`OTC Metrics, Purdue Research Found.,
`https://www.prf.org/otc/about/otc-metrics/index.html (last
`visited September 4, 2018) ................................................................... 7
`
`Rubén Muñoz et al., How New Testimonial Evidence Affects
`IPR Institution (Jun. 5, 2018),
`https://www.law360.com/articles/1049967 ................................... 11, 12
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Colleges and
`Universities Utility Patent Grants,
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/
`org_gr/all_univ_ag.htm ......................................................................... 5
`
`vi
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 7
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 8 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`AMICI’S STATEMENT OF IDENTITY AND INTEREST
`
`
`
`Amici Curiae, the States of Indiana, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachu-
`
`setts, Texas, Utah, and Virginia, file this brief in support of en banc re-
`
`hearing as a matter of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Pro-
`
`cedure 29(a).
`
`The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Federal Maritime Com-
`
`mission (FMC) v. South Carolina State Ports Authority holds that state
`
`sovereign immunity’s “preeminent purpose” is “to accord States the dig-
`
`nity that is consistent with their status as sovereign entities.” 535 U.S.
`
`743, 760 (2002). And because “[t]he affront to a State’s dignity does not
`
`lessen when an adjudication takes place in an administrative tribunal as
`
`opposed to an Article III court,” immunity applies in administrative pro-
`
`ceedings as well. Id. at 760–61.
`
`Although FMC addresses state sovereign immunity, and although
`
`“the precise contours of tribal sovereign immunity differ from those of
`
`state sovereign immunity,” the panel’s decision misapplies FMC to hold
`
`that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply in inter partes review (IPR)
`
`before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB). Slip Op. 6. While the
`
`decision “leave[s] for another day the question of whether there is any
`
`
`
`1
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 8
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 9 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`reason to treat state sovereign immunity differently,” id. at 12, litigants
`
`have already begun claiming that its reasoning forecloses state sovereign
`
`immunity—even though the PTAB has repeatedly held that state sover-
`
`eign immunity does apply in IPR. See Mylan Pharm. Inc., (8,629,111 B2),
`
`2018 WL 1100950, at *3 (Feb. 23, 2018).1
`
`The amici States have a strong interest in ensuring the panel’s mis-
`
`application of FMC is corrected. Sovereign immunity protects States’ sov-
`
`ereign dignity and the value of patents held by States and their public
`
`universities. Amici States file this brief to show why the Court should
`
`rehear this case en banc and correct the panel’s misreading of FMC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 See Pet. For Reh’g En Banc 2; U.S. Br. 8; Br. for Appellees Ericsson
`Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson at 11–39, Regents of the Univ.
`of Minn. v. LSI Corp., No. 18-1559 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 31, 2018); Br. for In-
`tervenor Gilead Sciences, Inc. at 7, Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. LSI
`Corp., No. 18-1559 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 31, 2018); Br. for Appellees LSI Corp.
`and Avago Technologies U.S., Inc. at 7, Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v.
`LSI Corp., No. 18-1559 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 31, 2018).
`
`
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 9
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 10 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Excluding state sovereign immunity from IPR would impose seri-
`
`ous harms on States. States and their public universities hold many pa-
`
`tents, and if States could not claim sovereign immunity in IPR, they
`
`would regularly be forced to appear before the PTAB. Beyond this digni-
`
`tary harm, public universities’ patents generate substantial revenues
`
`that are reinvested in cutting-edge research and development; subjecting
`
`States to IPR would make it more costly and difficult to protect this hard-
`
`earned revenue. And in light of the public purposes to which these reve-
`
`nues are devoted, it is unremarkable that sovereign immunity sometimes
`
`means States’ patents are specially protected.
`
`The panel’s decision threatens these harms because it misapplies
`
`FMC. It incorrectly concludes that “immunity would not apply” in a cir-
`
`cumstance wherein “an agency chooses whether to institute a proceeding
`
`on information supplied by a private party.” Slip Op. 8. But while FMC
`
`recognizes that the States have consented to “actions brought by the Fed-
`
`eral Government,” 535 U.S. at 764, private parties, not the federal gov-
`
`ernment, commence and prosecute IPR. The panel’s decision also mistak-
`
`enly focuses on minor procedural dissimilarities between IPR and federal
`
`
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 10
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 11 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`court litigation. Slip Op. 9–10. Although FMC observes that the proce-
`
`dural rules in the administrative proceedings at issue there bore “a re-
`
`markably strong resemblance to civil litigation in federal courts,” 535
`
`U.S. at 757, this similarity merely suggested that the proceedings were
`
`“the type of proceedings” to which sovereign immunity applies, id. at 756
`
`(emphasis added). The necessary elements of such a “proceeding” are that
`
`it be “before an impartial federal officer” and that the State be “required
`
`to defend itself.” Id. at 760–61 (emphasis added). IPR satisfies these re-
`
`quirements, and state sovereign immunity therefore applies in these pro-
`
`ceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 11
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 12 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I. Eliminating State Sovereign Immunity in Inter Partes
`Review Would Seriously Harm States
`
`
`
`A. Permitting private parties to force States into IPR
`would offend States’ sovereign dignity
`
`Many States recognize public universities as arms of the State,
`
`which means state sovereign immunity extends to these schools. See
`
`Kashani v. Purdue Univ., 813 F.2d 843, 845 (7th Cir. 1987). And these
`
`schools hold thousands of valuable patents. Between 1969 and 2012,
`
`75,353 patents were issued to U.S. institutions of higher education; many
`
`of these were public colleges and universities. See U.S. Patent and Trade-
`
`mark Office, U.S. Colleges and Universities Utility Patent Grants,
`
`https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/org_gr/all_univ_
`
`ag.htm. The number of patents issued has surged even more in recent
`
`years. In 2016, fourteen universities each received over one hundred util-
`
`ity patents. See National Academy of Inventors, Top 100 Worldwide Uni-
`
`versities Granted U.S. Utility Patents in 2016, http://www.academyofin-
`
`ventors.com/pdf/top-100-universities-2016.pdf. Of the top 100 universi-
`
`ties granted U.S. utility patents worldwide, nearly half were U.S. public
`
`universities. See id.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 12
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 13 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`This large volume of patents makes public universities natural tar-
`
`gets for those hoping to profit from research paid for by someone else. If
`
`a party manages to invalidate a university’s patent, it can use the re-
`
`search—now publicly available in the patent materials—without paying
`
`a cent in royalties. This financial incentive ensures that if IPR proceed-
`
`ings were made exempt from state sovereign immunity, public universi-
`
`ties would often find themselves hauled before the PTAB. This is a seri-
`
`ous offense to States’ sovereign dignity, regardless of the proceedings’
`
`outcome: “Private suits against nonconsenting States . . . present ‘the in-
`
`dignity of subjecting a State to the coercive process of judicial tribunals
`
`at the instance of private parties’ regardless of the forum.” Alden v.
`
`Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 749 (1999) (quoting In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443, 505
`
`(1887)) (emphasis added).
`
`B. Excluding sovereign immunity from IPR would jeop-
`ardize the substantial, publicly beneficial revenues
`generated by public universities’ intellectual property
`
`Subjecting public universities to IPR proceedings also would
`
`threaten universities’ patent revenue. Universities obtain substantial pa-
`
`tent revenue through “technology transfer” programs and from patent-
`
`
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 13
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 14 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`infringement litigation. For example, in fiscal year 2017 Purdue Univer-
`
`sity netted $4.2 million from technology transfer, Office of Technology
`
`Commercialization, OTC Metrics, Purdue Research Found.,
`
`https://www.prf.org/otc/about/otc-metrics/index.html (last visited Sep-
`
`tember 4, 2018), and in 2015 Indiana University earned $7.03 million,
`
`Indiana University Research and Technology Corp. Reports $7.03 Million
`
`in Revenue in 2015-16, IU Newsroom (Sept. 21, 2016), http://ar-
`
`chive.news.iu.edu/releases/2016/09/iurtc-revenue-2015-16.shtml. Mean-
`
`while, Carnegie-Mellon University settled a patent-infringement suit in
`
`2016 for more than $750 million, and in 2015 a “jury determined Apple’s
`
`A7 processors . . . used technology patented by the [University of Wis-
`
`consin] and awarded Wisconsin $234 million.” Dave Merrill et al., Bil-
`
`lions at Stake in University Patent Fights, Bloomberg (May 24, 2016),
`
`https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-university-patents/.
`
`Jeopardizing these revenues is particularly harmful because they
`
`are largely reinvested in universities’ publicly beneficial research and ed-
`
`ucation efforts. Indiana University, for example, directs 30% of intellec-
`
`tual property revenues back into research and development through the
`
`
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 14
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 15 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`campus units and labs that created the technology. Ind. Univ., Intellec-
`
`tual Property Policy 3–5, https://policies.iu.edu/files/policy-pdfs/ua-05-in-
`
`tellectual-property.pdf. Its policy directs a further 35% of the revenues to
`
`the University itself to support further research. Id.
`
`Indeed, the purpose to which public universities devote their patent
`
`revenues demonstrates that the law sensibly treats these patents differ-
`
`ently than other patents. Public universities’ patents generate revenues
`
`that benefit the public, whereas patents held by others generate revenues
`
`that simply benefit their owners. It is therefore unremarkable that state
`
`sovereign immunity sometimes results in special protections for public
`
`universities’ patents. See, e.g., Xechem Int'l, Inc. v. Univ. of Tex. M.D.
`
`Anderson Cancer Ctr., 382 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Court should
`
`therefore not hesitate to correct the panel’s misapplication of FMC.
`
`II. The Panel’s Decision Misapplies FMC
`
`
`The panel’s decision threatens the harms discussed above because
`
`it draws two mistaken conclusions from FMC: (1) that sovereign immun-
`
`ity does not apply when “an agency chooses whether to institute a pro-
`
`ceeding on information supplied by a private party,” Slip Op. 8, and (2)
`
`
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 15
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 16 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`that it does not apply where “the agency proceedings are both function-
`
`ally and procedurally different from district court litigation,” id. at 10.
`
`The Court should grant rehearing en banc and correct these errors. A
`
`proper application of FMC requires applying state sovereign immunity
`
`in IPR.
`
`A.
`
`Inter partes review is not a proceeding brought by the
`federal government
`
`“States, upon ratification of the Constitution, did not consent to be-
`
`come mere appendages of the Federal Government,” but instead “entered
`
`the Union with their sovereignty intact.” FMC, 535 U.S. at 751 (internal
`
`quotation marks and citation omitted). States have, however, consented
`
`to suits “commenced and prosecuted . . . in the name of the United
`
`States,” and state sovereign immunity therefore does not apply to such
`
`suits. Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 755 (1999).
`
`The panel’s decision mistakenly expands the category of proceed-
`
`ings “commenced and prosecuted” by the United States to include circum-
`
`stances where an “agency chooses whether to institute a proceeding on
`
`information supplied by a private party.” Slip Op. 8 (citing FMC, 535 U.S.
`
`at 768). While state sovereign immunity permits private parties to “com-
`
`plain to the Federal Government” and permits the United States “to take
`
`
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 16
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 17 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`subsequent legal action,” FMC, 535 U.S. at 768 n. 19 (internal quotation
`
`marks and citation omitted), the “subsequent legal action” still must be
`
`commenced and prosecuted by the United States.
`
`IPR is not commenced and prosecuted by the United States. It is
`
`always commenced by a private party: “At its outset, a party must file ‘a
`
`petition to institute an inter partes review of [a] patent.’” SAS Inst., Inc.
`
`v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1353 (2018) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 311(a)). And it
`
`is prosecuted by the private-party petitioner: “Much as in the civil litiga-
`
`tion system it mimics, in [IPR] the petitioner is master of its complaint
`
`and normally entitled to judgment on all of the claims it raises, not just
`
`those the decisionmaker might wish to address.” Id. at 1355. The
`
`“part[ies]” conduct discovery in IPR, not the federal government. 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.51(b).
`
`The three points the panel’s decision cites do not undermine this
`
`conclusion. The decision first asserts, citing the Supreme Court’s decision
`
`in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 138
`
`S.Ct. 1365, 1371 (2018), that “the Director [of the U.S. Patent and Trade-
`
`mark Office] has complete discretion to decide not to institute review.”
`
`Slip Op. 8. But the Director’s discretion is constrained by a clear legal
`
`
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 17
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 18 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`standard—he may not “authorize” IPR unless “there is a reasonable like-
`
`lihood that the petitioner would prevail.” 35 U.S.C. § 314. His discretion
`
`is “complete” only in the sense that his “decision is ‘final and nonappeal-
`
`able.’” Oil States, 138 S.Ct. at 1371 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 314(d)).
`
`And even with respect to appeals, the Supreme Court has left the
`
`door open to appeals of decisions “that implicate constitutional questions,
`
`that depend on other less closely related statutes, or that present other
`
`questions of interpretation that reach [beyond IPR.]” Cuozzo Speed Tech-
`
`nologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 2141 (2016). Like the Federal Mar-
`
`itime Commission, the Director, through the PTAB, applies legal princi-
`
`ples to neutrally adjudicate the parties’ dispute. That the statute limits
`
`appeals from certain of his decisions does not transform the proceeding
`
`into one commenced and prosecuted by the United States.
`
`Moreover, patent owners are, as a practical matter, forced to appear
`
`before the PTAB even before its initial decision. Patent owners may file a
`
`preliminary response to the IPR petition, 35 U.S.C. § 313, and a recent
`
`study found that the PTAB authorized IPR on 100% of the petitions
`
`where no preliminary response was filed. Rubén Muñoz et al., How New
`
`Testimonial Evidence Affects IPR Institution, Law360 (Jun. 5, 2018),
`
`
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 18
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 19 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`https://www.law360.com/articles/1049967. The PTAB’s decision to au-
`
`thorize IPR after a State has been effectively hauled before the federal
`
`administrative tribunal “does not retroactively convert an . . . adjudica-
`
`tion initiated and pursued by a private party into one initiated and pur-
`
`sued by the Federal Government.” FMC, 535 U.S. at 764.
`
`The other two points the panel’s decision notes are equally irrele-
`
`vant. That the PTAB “may choose to continue review even if the peti-
`
`tioner chooses not to participate” and may “participate in appeals even if
`
`the private challengers drop out,” Slip Op. 9 (internal quotation marks
`
`and citations omitted), does not mean that the PTAB commenced the pro-
`
`ceeding. As noted above, even if these actions were construed as “prose-
`
`cuting” the case—itself a doubtful proposition—they cannot undo the fact
`
`that the proceeding was commenced by a private party. And in any event,
`
`the possibility that the federal government will commence and prosecute
`
`an action against a State in a particular proceeding does not mean that
`
`state sovereign immunity is inapplicable in all such proceedings. The
`
`United States can sue states in federal court; that does not imply that
`
`private parties can as well.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 19
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 20 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`B. The existence of sovereign immunity does not turn on
`minor procedural similarities
`
`The panel’s decision also errs in emphasizing the differences be-
`
`tween “procedures in IPR” and “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
`
`Slip Op. 9. FMC compared commission proceedings with federal judicial
`
`proceedings not as a necessary element of state sovereign immunity, but
`
`only as shorthand for “the type of proceedings from which the Framers
`
`would have thought the States possessed immunity when they agreed to
`
`enter the Union,” FMC, 535 U.S. at 756. The existence vel non of some-
`
`thing so fundamental as state sovereign immunity, however, does not
`
`turn on whether procedural rules allow “significant amendments,” au-
`
`thorize “interrogatories [and] depositions,” or permit “live testimony.”
`
`Slip Op. 11. Such procedural minutiae may usefully signal that the pro-
`
`ceeding is one where sovereign immunity applies, but they should not be
`
`confused with the fundamental attributes of proceedings from which
`
`States are protected.
`
` Those fundamental attributes, rather, arise from the crucial ques-
`
`tion posed in FMC, whether “a State is required to defend itself in an
`
`adversarial proceeding against a private party before an impartial federal
`
`
`
`13
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 20
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 21 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`officer.” FMC, 535 U.S. at 760–61 (emphasis added). In addition to ex-
`
`cluding suits commenced and prosecuted by the United States, this test
`
`sets forth two essential features of “proceedings” from which States are
`
`immune: (1) adjudication under neutral legal principles, and (2) signifi-
`
`cant limitation of future related litigation.
`
`The first element recognizes that purely political exercises of un-
`
`constrained discretion are not “proceedings.” IPR easily meets this crite-
`
`rion: The PTAB is a neutral tribunal, and its patentability determina-
`
`tions are governed by law and subject to judicial review. See 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`141, 311.
`
`The second ensures that a State is truly “required” to appear before
`
`the administrative tribunal. FMC holds that the level of compulsion need
`
`not rise to the level of a court order; it is sufficient if failing to appear
`
`would “substantially compromise [a State’s] ability to defend itself.”
`
`FMC, 535 U.S. at 762. IPR qualifies: Failing to appear makes it much
`
`more likely—if not guaranteed—that the PTAB will invalidate a chal-
`
`lenged patent. Furthermore, a patent owner “is precluded from taking
`
`action inconsistent with [an] adverse judgment” of the PTAB. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.73. Plainly, unless immune, a State ignores IPR at its peril.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 21
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 22 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`***
`
`In sum, whether state sovereign immunity applies to IPR is a crit-
`
`ically important question for States as patent holders. Because the
`
`panel’s decision fundamentally misreads FMC, it threatens to lead the
`
`Court to an incorrect resolution of this question.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Court should grant the petition for rehearing en banc and cor-
`
`rect the panel’s mistaken application of FMC.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/ Thomas M. Fisher
`
`
`CURTIS T. HILL, JR.
`Attorney General of Indiana
`THOMAS M. FISHER
`Solicitor General*
`KIAN J. HUDSON
`Deputy Attorney General
`
`*Counsel of Record
`
`KEN PAXTON
`Attorney General of Texas
`P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)
`Austin, Texas 78711-2548
`
`SEAN D. REYES
`Attorney General of Utah
`350 N. State Street, Ste. 230
`Salt Lake City, UT 84114
`
`Office of the Attorney General
`302 West Washington Street
`IGCS 5th Floor
`Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
`(317) 232-6255
`Tom.Fisher@atg.in.gov
`
`
`
`RUSSELL A. SUZUKI
`Attorney General of Hawaii
`425 Queen Street
`Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
`
`LISA MADIGAN
`Attorney General of Illinois
`100 W. Randolph St., 12th Floor
`Chicago IL 60601
`
`
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 22
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 23 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`MAURA HEALEY
`Attorney General of Massachusetts
`One Ashburton Place
`Boston, MA 02108
`
`
`MARK R. HERRING
`Attorney General of Virginia
`202 North Ninth Street
`Richmond, VA 23219
`
`
`Counsel for Amici States
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 23
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 24 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing Brief complies with the length
`
`
`
`limits set forth in Federal Circuit Rule 30(a). Specifically, this brief con-
`
`tains 2,599 words (excluding the sections exempted by Federal Rule of
`
`Appellate Procedure 32(f) and Federal Circuit Rule 32(b)) as determined
`
`by the word count feature of the word processing program used to create
`
`this brief.
`
`
`
`I further certify that the foregoing brief complies with the typeface
`
`requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5)
`
`and the type style requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
`
`32(a)(6). Specifically, this brief has been prepared using a proportionally
`
`spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2013, in 14-point Century School-
`
`book font.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Thomas M. Fisher
`Thomas M. Fisher
`Solicitor General
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Office of the Indiana Attorney General
`Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor
`302 W. Washington Street
`Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
`Telephone: (317) 232-6255
`Facsimile: (317) 232-7979
`Tom.Fisher@atg.in.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Patent Owner Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`Ex. 2010, p. 24
`
`
`
`Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 25 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND FILING
`
`I hereby certify that on the 4t