Christy Inc. filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the United States government, arguing that the cancellation of patent claims in America Invents Act (AIA) reviews is an unconstitutional taking of property rights. The lawsuit estimates potential damages for the proposed class, but legal practitioners believe patent owners who are seeking compensation on constitutional grounds for claims canceled in AIA review will have to overcome numerous hurdles to win a takings claim. Law360 contacted Finnegan partner Jason Romrell for his thoughts.
Jason referred to the Federal Circuit's 1985 decision in Patlex v. Mossinghoff, where the court rejected arguments from a patent owner who said the retroactive application of patent re-exams violated the takings clause. He noted the court's analysis that statutes seeking to fix a defect in an administrative process are treated more favorably for the purpose of takings under the Fifth Amendment. He said, "You look at Patlex, and a lot of the same analysis could potentially apply." Christy Inc. made other arguments in its lawsuit along with the takings claim, including breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Jason said, "These are all arguments we're going to see more of and that the courts are going to have to grapple with in light of the express narrowness of the Oil States holding."
