We are fast approaching the Supreme Court oral arguments in the case of Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy group on Monday, November 27th. We had previously reported on this case in a recent piece, Oil Battles Greene Energy to War over Inter Partes Review in the Supreme Court.  A whopping 57 amicus curiae briefs have been filed, underscoring the intense interest in the outcome of this case.  The briefs represent a vast array of interested parties, including law professors, legal associations, small businesses, and recognized companies in the fields of medicine, electronics, automobiles, and technology. The key issue of the case is simple – whether the Patent Office’s inter partes review (IPR) process is an unconstitutional denial of the right to a jury trial.

The amicus briefs fall into three buckets: 1) those supporting the petitioner, Oil States, for the right to a jury trial), 2) those supporting the respondent, Greene’s Energy Group, upholding the IPR process, and 3) those supporting neither party. Below are summaries of each side’s justifications for their positions, as well as a Score Board of the briefs:

The Oil States amici state that patent rights are private rights and that patent holders have the right to a jury trial. They also assert that IPR has discouraged invention and patent filing, and it harmed the patent owners by incentivizing competitors to use it for fronting an infringement suit. A group of business owners asserted that “IPR devalues patent rights in ways that harm inventors, product-creators, entrepreneurs, and the entire innovation economy.”

On the other hand, Greene’s Energy Group amici hold that patent rights are public rights because they serve the public interest. They also hold that IPR is constitutional because Congress had legally created this proceeding by the America Invents Act (AIA). According to their arguments, IPR ensures high-quality patents for the public and rewards true innovation by enabling the review Board to re-determine whether the patent was granted correctly. A software company emphasized that without IPR “more wrongfully-issued patents will remain in place, deterring innovation and creating a drag on the Nation’s economy.”

Several entities who took neither side voiced their interest in definitively knowing the role of IPRs in the patent system. They asked the Court to consider how its ruling would affect the two groups of patent owners divided by the IPR question.

Here is the Score Board of the 57 amicus briefs. It will be interesting to see who is on the winning side once the Supreme Court issues its decision next spring.

In support of the

Right to a Jury Trail

22

In support of the

Current IPR Framework

26

In support of

Neither Party

9
ALLIACENSE LIMITED LLC SAP AMERICA, INC., GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., NAUTILUS, INC., ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ASSOCIATION, FINANCIAL SERVICES ROUNDTABLE, AND XILINX, INC. TOMÁS GÓMEZ-AROSTEGUI AND SEAN BOTTOMLEY

US INVENTOR, INC. AND 31 OTHER GRASS ROOTS INVENTOR ORGANIZATIONS

 PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE, THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, ENGINE ADVOCACY, AND THE R STREET INSTITUTE AS AMICI CURIAE

THE CIVIL JURY PROJECT AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

 
SECURITY PEOPLE, INC. (“SPI”) KNOWLEDGE ECOLOGY INTERNATIONAL AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION
EAGLE FORUM EDUCATION & LEGAL DEFENSE FUND U.S. GOLF MANUFACTURERS COUNCIL BOSTON PATENT LAW ASSOCIATION (BPLA)
UNISONE STRATEGIC IP, INC. PROFESSOR LEE A. HOLLAAR PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD BAR ASSOCIATION
39 AFFECTED PATENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR ACCESSIBLE MEDICINES THE ASSOCIATION OF AMICUS COUNSEL

J. KENNETH BLACKWELL; PAUL CAPRIO; JAMES EDWARDS; COLIN HANNA; MATTHEW KANDRACH; KEVIN L. KEARNS; GEORGE LANDRITH; CURT LEVEY; EDWARD R. MARTIN, JR.; JAMES L. MARTIN; JENNY BETH MARTIN; AND C. PRESTON NOELL III

 DELL INC., FACEBOOK, INC., AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ARISTA NETWORKS, INC., CLOUDFLARE, INC., EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORP., HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE CO. , HTC CORPORATION, JCPENNEY CORPORATION, INC., LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., RED HAT, INC., SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., TWITTER, INC., AND VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION

 
LIQUIDPOWER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC APPLE INC. 3M COMPANY, BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO., CARGILL INCORPORATED, JOHNSON & JOHNSON, MONSANTO COMPANY, THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, RAYTHEON COMPANY, AND SHELL INTERNATIONAL
ABBVIE, INC., ALLERGAN, INC., AND CELGENE CORP

 

 INTEL, APPLIED MATERIALS, CISCO, GOOGLE, LG ELECTRONICS, ON SEMICONDUCTOR, SAMSUNG, AND XEROX

 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO

 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND MANUFACTURERS OF AMERICA ASKELADDEN LLC

 
EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE LLC GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
INTERDIGITAL, INC.; POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.; XPERI CORPORATION; FALLBROOK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; AND CUMMINS-ALLISON CORP AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

 
UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO

 

 AMERICA’S HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS

THE CATO INSTITUTE AND AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION FOUNDATION

 THE INTERNET ASSOCIATION, SOFTWARE & INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®, ASSOCIATION OF GLOBAL AUTOMAKERS, INC., COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION AND SAS INSTITUTE INC.
BIOTECHNOLOGY INNOVATION ORGANIZATION (BIO) AND ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY MANAGERS (AUTM) RETAIL LITIGATION CENTER, INC. AND NATIONAL RETAIL FEDERATION

 

PROFESSOR JAMES W. ELY, JR. AND MOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION

 ARRIS GROUP, INC., ARM, INC., CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., HP INC., AND NETAPP, INC.

IEEE-USA

 AARP AND AARP FOUNDATION

 
SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS LLC

 

 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.

 
GARY LAUDER, PAUL MORINVILLE, ROBERT SCHMIDT, NATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, SMALL BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL, UNITED INVENTORS ASSOCIATION, MCM PORTFOLIO LLP, SUMVENTURES GROUP, LTD., ACCESSIS LLC, FLOCEL INC., GREAT LAKES NEUROTECHNOLOGIES, MONASHEE MARKETING, NEUROWAVE SYSTEMS, AND POWERTOOL INNOVATION

PROFESSORS OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, FEDERAL COURTS, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

 
PROFESSOR DMITRY KARSHTEDT UNIFIED PATENTS INC.

27 LAW PROFESSORS

 THE INITIATIVE FOR MEDICINES, ACCESS & KNOWLEDGE (I-MAK)
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION, AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REVERSIONARY PROPERTY OWNERS BSA | THE SOFTWARE ALLIANCE
TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.
ACT | THE APP ASSOCIATION
MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.
72 PROFESSORS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

-Shin Hee Lee and Anthony Sabatelli, PhD, JD

Shin Hee Lee is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Chemistry Department at Yale University. She is currently associated with the Yale Energy Sciences Institute, where she specializes in organic synthesis of novel light-harvesting dye molecules for solar cells. Prior to attending Yale, Shin Hee obtained her B.S. in Chemistry with High Honors at the University of Michigan – Ann Arbor, during which she published patents and papers on developing synthetic methodologies for fluorinated small molecules.

This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author only and are not necessarily shared by Dilworth IP, its other attorneys, agents, or staff, or its clients.