Whether the inter partes review proceedings brought by private respondents against the University of Minnesota in this case are barred by sovereign immunity

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. 748, 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., 189 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.