June 24, 2019
Edited by Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corp., Nos. 18-1559 et al. (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2019), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s decision finding that state sovereign immunity would apply to IPR proceedings, but had been waived, and held that state sovereign immunity does not protect state-owned patents from challenges from IPR challenges.
University of Minnesota (UMN), an arm of the state of Minnesota, sued LSI and customers of Ericsson in district court, alleging infringement of several patents relating to semiconductors and 4G LTE networks. LSI and Ericsson then filed IPR petitions challenging the patents. UMN moved to dismiss the IPR challenges based on state sovereign immunity. The Board denied UMN’s motions, finding that UMN had waived its right to assert state sovereign immunity by filing suit in district court. UMN appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed. The court explained that “[state] sovereign immunity does not apply to suits brought by the United States, including agency proceedings commenced by the United States.” The court compared the case to Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., 896 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which found no tribal sovereign immunity in IPR proceedings, and discussed factors distinguishing IPR jurisdiction from Article III jurisdiction. The court determined that IPR proceedings represent the United States agency proceeding to reconsider a prior patent grant and are thus not subject to state sovereign immunity.
Copyright © 2019 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Webinar
Patenting Pharmaceutical Drug Formulations: Withstanding Litigation and PTAB Challenges
February 16, 2021
Webinar
INCONTESTABLE® Blog
Brands Gotta Brag a Little: When “Best Possible” Claims are Self-Referential Rather Than Comparative
January 19, 2021
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Disavowal of Infringement Case Eliminates Article III Standing for Appeal of IPR
January 13, 2021
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Federal Circuit Finds Preamble Limiting When It Supplies the Claim’s Structure
January 12, 2021
AIA Blog
USPTO Issues Memorandum Aligning Indefiniteness Standard with District Court
January 11, 2021
AIA Blog
IPR and CBM Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in October and November 2020
January 8, 2021
Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.