Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Amicus Brief Filed in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC
Amicus Brief Filed in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC
16712
QUESTION PRESENTED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iv
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................ 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 2
ARGUMENT ............................................................... 4
I. Patents Rights Are and Have Always Been
Treated On Par with Rights to Land ......................... 4
A. The Early Courts Were Unanimous That
Patents Are Private Property Rights ........... 4
B. Suggestions that Patents are Mere
Franchises are Contrary to the
Historical Understanding of That Term ...... 8
C. Recent Decisions of This Court Reaffirm
that Patents are Private Property Rights .. 11
II. The AIA Does Not Address a New or Unique
Problem And the Decision in This Case is Dictated by
Precedent .................................................................. 12
A. The Complaints of Low Quality Patents
Are a Persistent Feature of the Patent
System ......................................................... 13
B. American Patent Law Has Always
Empowered and Trusted Federal Judges
and Only Federal Judges to Cancel
Improperly Issued Patents.......................... 17
C. McCormick Harvesting Authoritatively
Resolves the Issue Before the Court ........... 21
III. The PTAB Has Crippled the Innovation
Economy .................................................................... 25
iii
APPENDIX
List of Amici ........................................................App. 1
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page(s)
Ames v. Howard,
1 F. Cas. 755 (C.C.D. Mass. 1833) ......................... 11
Cammeyer v. Newton,
94 U.S. 225 (1876) .................................................... 9
Corfield v. Coryell,
6 F.Cas. 546 (1823)................................................. 12
Evans v. Jordan,
8 F. Cas. 872 (C.C.D. Va. 1813) ........................... 5, 6
Ex Parte Wood,
22 U.S. 603 (1824) .................................................... 7
v
Gonzales v. Raich,
545 U.S. 1 (2005) .................................................... 30
Gray v. James,
10 F.Cas. 1019 (C.C.D. Pa. 1817) ...................... 6, 12
James v. Campbell,
104 U.S. 356 (1882) ...................................... 8, 14, 39
McClurg v. Kingsland,
42 U.S. 202 (1843) .................................................... 7
Mowry v. Whitney,
81 U.S. 434 (1871) ............................................ 24, 25
Payne v. Tennessee,
501 U.S. 808 (1991) ................................................ 30
Seymour v. McCormick,
60 U.S. 96 (1856) ...................................................... 7
Seymour v. Osborne,
78 U.S. 516 (1870) .................................................. 10
Slidell v. Grandjean,
111 U.S. 412 (1884) .......................................... 10, 11
Stanley v. Hewitt,
22 Fed. Cas. 1043 (1836) ........................................ 23
Thompson v. Haight,
23 F. Cas. 1040 (S.D.N.Y. 1826) ............................ 17
Statutes
35 U.S.C. 261........................................................... 11
35 U.S.C. 305........................................................... 16
Other Authorities
Rules
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Constitution vests Congress with the authori-
ty [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful
Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries. In furtherance of that au-
thority, Congress has, throughout history, enacted
various Patent Acts. Congress most recent foray into
the patent field has been the America Invents Act
(AIA), Pub. L. No. 11229, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), 35
U.S.C. 100, et seq. The AIA, in a break with over
200 years of precedent, permitted an administrative
tribunal to invalidate previously issued patents. The
inter partes review authorized by 35 U.S.C. 311
319, permits the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(PTAB)an administrative tribunal housed entire-
ly within the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)
to cancel existing patents irrespective of when they
issued, how many times they have been upheld in the
courts, or even how many layers and rounds of review
they have survived within the Patent Office itself.
The practices adopted by the PTAB have resulted
in unfairness to the litigants, and the lack of certain-
ty in the property rights in patents. The structure
and function of the PTAB are at odds with the status
of patents as private property rights, and the Federal
Circuits decision upholding the system ignored two
centuries of this Courts decisions. It cannot stand.
ARGUMENT
2Justice Washington was the same Justice that mere six years
prior to authoring Corfield, wrote the opinion in Gray where he
emphasized that patent infringement is an unlawful invasion of
property to which [the patentee is] exclusively entitled. 10 F.
Cas. at 1021.
11
4The 1836 Act abolished the private right to cancel the patent,
but, as this Court held in Mowry, supra, left undisturbed the
governments power to sue for cancellation before a court of eq-
uity.
20
CONCLUSION
Mark Twain once wrote that [a] country without
. . . good patent laws was just a crab, and couldnt
travel any way but sideways or backwards. Mark
Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court
68 (Harper & Brothers 1889). The inter partes review
created by the AIA is increasing the odds that the
United States will turn from being the foremost lead-
er in innovation and technological progress into just
such a crab. The Court should ignore neither the sig-
nificant constitutional problems with consigning pa-
tents to a status lower than other property rights, nor
the realworld consequences of such a treatment. For
these reasons, the Court should reverse the judgment
below.
34
Respectfully submitted,
ROY I. LIEBMAN
Counsel of Record
460 West 34th Street
4th Floor
New York, NY 10001
(212) 685-9800
[email protected]
J. Kenneth Blackwell
Chairman, Constitutional Congress, Inc.
Paul Caprio
Director, Family PAC Federal
James Edwards
Executive Director, Conservatives for Property Rights
Colin Hanna
President, Let Freedom Ring
Matthew Kandrach
President, Consumer Action for a Strong Economy
Kevin L. Kearns
President, U.S. Business & Industry Council
George Landrith
President, Frontiers of Freedom
Curt Levey
President, The Committee for Justice
James L. Martin
Founder & Chairman, 60 Plus Association