throbber
Case: 18-1638 Document: 162 Page: 1 Filed: 09/07/2018
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket