No. 19-1074

Celgene Corporation v. Laura A. Peter, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director, Patent and Trademark Office

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2020-03-02
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (1)Relisted (3) Experienced Counsel
Tags: administrative-review america-invents-act fifth-amendment inter-partes-review lucas-test patent-rights patent-rights-takings patent-trial-and-appeal-board patents penn-central-test property-rights takings takings-clause
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Takings FifthAmendment Patent Trademark TradeSecret JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-06-18 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether retroactive application of inter partes review to patents issued before passage of the America Invents Act violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED When Congress passed the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011, it created a new administrative proceeding called “inter partes review” for reviewing the validity of previously issued patents. See LeahySmith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 6, 125 Stat. 284, 299-313 (2011). In the same Act, Congress created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, a new administrative tribunal for conducting inter partes review. Id. § 7. That Board, now numbering 270-plus “administrative patent judges,” was given the retroactive power to cancel patent rights conferred prior to enactment of the AIA, “even though that procedure was not in place when [those patents] issued.” Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 138 8. Ct. 1365, 1379 (2018). In just its first four years, the Board invalidated more than 16,600 patent claims, most of which were likely issued before inter partes review was enacted. This case presents a question expressly left open in Oil States: Whether retroactive application of inter partes review to patents issued before passage of the America Invents Act violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Docket Entries

2020-06-22
Petition DENIED.
2020-06-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/18/2020.
2020-06-09
Rescheduled.
2020-06-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2020.
2020-06-02
Rescheduled.
2020-05-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/4/2020.
2020-05-15
Reply of petitioner Celgene Corporation filed. (Distributed)
2020-05-01
Brief of respondent Laura A. Peter, Deputy Under secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director, Patent and Trademark Office in opposition filed.
2020-03-31
Brief amici curiae of Intellectual Property Law Professors filed.
2020-03-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 1, 2020 to May 1, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-03-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 1, 2020.
2020-02-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 1, 2020)

Attorneys

Celgene Corporation
Gregory Andrew CastaniasJones Day, Petitioner
Gregory Andrew CastaniasJones Day, Petitioner
Intellectual Property Law Professors
Aaron Mark FrankelKramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Amicus
Aaron Mark FrankelKramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Amicus
Peter, Laura A.
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent