Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2018-1559, 2018-1560, 2018-1561, 2018-1562, 2018-1563, 2018-1564, 2018-1565 · judgment June 14, 2019

Certiorari denied · January 13, 2020
Pre-decision estimate: 9% cert probability (95% interval 5%–14%)

Before the decision, about 2.1× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and a Federal Circuit decision below, and down for a business respondent.

Question presented

States and state entities, including the University of Minnesota, have sovereign immunity to suits by private parties before courts and “court-like administrative tribunals.” Fed. Mar. Comm’n v. S.C. State Ports Auth., 535 U.S. 743, 761 (2002). At its core, this immunity protects States’ prerogative to decide when, and in what forum, to resolve their disputes with private citizens. See, e.g., Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 (1984). In the patent context, this includes public universities’ right to select the forum for adjudicating infringement and invalidity disputes. In 2011, Congress created an administrative process for challenging a patent’s validity called “inter partes review” or “IPR.” IPRs are “adversarial, adjudicatory proceedings between the ‘person’ who petitioned for review and the patent owner.” Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 139 S. Ct. 1853, 1866 (2019). The challenge is decided by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an “adjudicatory body within the” Patent Office consisting of “panels of administrative patent judges.” Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365, 1371 (2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit— the only circuit with jurisdiction to decide the question, see 35 U.S.C. § 141(c)—held that state sovereign immunity does not apply to IPR proceedings, a conclusion repeatedly rejected by the PTAB itself. The question presented is: Whether the inter partes review proceedings brought by private respondents against the University of Minnesota in this case are barred by sovereign immunity.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Kevin K. Russell
Russell & Woofter LLC

For respondent
Mark Simon Davies
White & Case LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Amicus briefs
3 merits
(3 supporting pet./neither)

Proceedings

  1. Jan 13 2020
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Dec 18 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
  3. Dec 18 2019
    Reply of petitioner Regents of the University of Minnesota filed.
  4. Dec 05 2019
    Brief of respondents LSI Corporation and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc.,et al. in opposition filed.
  5. Dec 05 2019
    Brief of respondent Gilead Sciences, Inc. in opposition filed.
  6. Dec 05 2019
    Brief of respondents Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson in opposition filed.
  7. Oct 25 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including December 5, 2019, for all respondents.
  8. Oct 24 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 14, 2019 to December 5, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  9. Oct 15 2019
    Brief amici curiae of State of Indiana et al. filed.
  10. Oct 15 2019
    Brief amici curiae of Twelve State Universities and State University Systems filed.
  11. Oct 11 2019
    Brief amicus curiae of Association of Public and Land-grant Universities filed.
  12. Oct 04 2019
    Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Regents of the University of Minnesota.
  13. Sep 20 2019
    The motions to extend the time to file responses to the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted and the time is extended to and including November 14, 2019, for all respondents.
  14. Sep 19 2019
    Motion of respondents Ericsson Inc., et al. to extend the time to file a response from October 15, 2019 to November 14, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  15. Sep 17 2019
    Motion of respondent Gilead Sciences, Inc. to extend the time to file a response from October 15, 2019 to November 14, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  16. Sep 12 2019
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 15, 2019)