PTAB Applies State Sovereign Immunity in IPR

Feb 2, 2017

Reading Time : 2 min

The dispute between Covidien and UFRF arose from a breach-of-license contract between the parties concerning the ’251 patent. In a Florida state court action, UFRF alleged that Covidien breached its contract with UFRF. Covidien filed a declaratory judgment counterclaim of noninfringement. Covidien removed the case to the Northern District of Florida, where UFRF argued that it was an arm of the state of Florida and therefore entitled to state sovereign immunity protection under the 11th Amendment. The district court agreed and remanded the action back to state court.

UFRF argued that the same immunity applied and required dismissal of Covidien’s petitions. The PTAB agreed, relying on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Fed. Mar. Comm’n v. South Carolina State Ports Auth.1 and the Federal Circuit’s decision in Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Curators of the University of Missouri.2 Covidien argued that these decisions did not apply to inter partes reviews because patents are public rights and that 11th Amendment immunity is limited by a public-rights exception. The PTAB disagreed, stating that the case law Covidien relied on did not address the issue before the PTAB. Covidien also argued that sovereign immunity is irrelevant because inter partes reviews are not suits against the state, but instead are directed at the patent itself. The PTAB disagreed with this argument as well, observing that inter partes reviews are not directed only at the patent and that the AIA provides protection for patent owners who are harassed through the inter partes review process.

The PTAB held that inter partes reviews are adversarial and that they are similar to civil litigation in federal courts. The PTAB also noted similarities between the role of an APJ in an inter partes review and the role of an Article III judge in a civil litigation. The PTAB concluded that the similarities between the nature of an inter partes review and a civil litigation are “sufficient to implicate the immunity afforded to the States by the Eleventh Amendment.”

Next, the PTAB analyzed whetherUFRF was “an arm of the State.”UFRF argued that a district court had already held that it was an arm of the state and that the PTAB should follow this previous determination. The PTAB found thatUFRF was statutorily connected to the state of Florida as a direct-support organization, and that the University of Florida and state of Florida operated significant control overUFRF. Based on the state’s control overUFRF and the previous district court’s finding, the PTAB found thatUFRF was an arm of the state of Florida and that the 11thAmendment immunity applied. The PTAB dismissed all three Covidien petitions.

Covidien LP v. Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc., IPR2016-01274, IPR2016-01275, IPR2016-01276 (Jan. 25, 2017).

1 535 U.S. 743 (2002).

2 473 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited reference met the test.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily in favor of the bar.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 24, 2025

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 17, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement complaint involving gene editing technology that sought relief under the Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Specifically, the court found the patentee’s complaint sufficiently alleged at least some uses of the claimed technology that, when taken as true, were not solely uses of a “patented invention” that were “reasonably related” to an FDA submission.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.