Difference between revisions of "Oil States"
From Phyllis Schlafly Eagles
(Created page with "In ''Oil States Energy Services v. Green Energy Group'', Sup. Ct. No. 16-712, the United States Supreme Court granted Oil States' petition for certiorari in order to review on...") |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Whether ''inter partes'' review — an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents — violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury. | :Whether ''inter partes'' review — an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents — violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury. | ||
| − | [https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/06/petition-granted-states.html Commentators have observed] that this case has the potential to bring down the changes wrought by the | + | [https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/06/petition-granted-states.html Commentators have observed] that this case has the potential to bring down the changes wrought by the America Invents Act against small inventors. |
[http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/13/industry-reaction-scotus-granting-cert-oil-states/id=84460/ Commentator Gene Quinn observed]: | [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/13/industry-reaction-scotus-granting-cert-oil-states/id=84460/ Commentator Gene Quinn observed]: | ||
Revision as of 12:58, 22 July 2017
In Oil States Energy Services v. Green Energy Group, Sup. Ct. No. 16-712, the United States Supreme Court granted Oil States' petition for certiorari in order to review only the following question presented:
- Whether inter partes review — an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents — violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.
Commentators have observed that this case has the potential to bring down the changes wrought by the America Invents Act against small inventors.
Commentator Gene Quinn observed:
- [T]he truth is any decision by the Supreme Court in Oil States simply cannot make things any worse for patent owners than they already are. Patents rights are currently be extinguished by an Article I tribunal that fundamentally refuses to provide even a modicum of due process. The PTAB refuses to consider evidence timely submitted, they refuse to allow amendments despite the statute saying there is a right to amend, they refuse to issue final decisions on all the claims challenged, they make up their own standards rather than follow statutory tests, there are no judicial rules of ethical conduct for PTAB judges, PTAB judges decide issues where there are serious conflicts of interest, and much more. Therefore, things could hardly get any worse, yet Oil States presents the very real possibility that the Supreme Court will rule that post grant proceedings at the USPTO violate the Constitution.
