United States: State Universities Gain Immunity From IPRs

Today, many universities own extensive patent portfolios that are managed by sophisticated tech transfer offices. Universities obtain these patents for many reasons, not the least of which is that some portfolios generate millions of dollars in licensing revenues. Recently, a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that sovereign immunity prevents IPRs from being instituted regarding patents owned by many state universities. This result is a boon to university patent portfolios, and as explored in this article, universities should consider this new application of sovereign immunity in their licensing and litigation strategies.

Brief Background on State Sovereign Immunity

The law of sovereign immunity can be complex, and a brief description of the current state of the law may be helpful to understanding the effects of the PTAB's recent decision. The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution creates sovereign immunity for states in federal courts, stating that "[t]he Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Importantly, state sovereign immunity is not limited to suits in which a state itself is a party. Instead, sovereign immunity extends to "state agents and state instrumentalities."1 In many cases, sovereign immunity extends to universities that receive state support, depending upon the relationship between the state and the university. In determining whether a university is a state instrumentality, courts consider various factors, including (1) the characterization of the university under state law, (2) the state's degree of control over the university, (3) the sources of funding for the university, and (4) the state's responsibility for judgments against the university.2 Indeed, courts have often found universities to be state instrumentalities even though they receive private donations and revenues from commercial operations.3

Even when sovereign immunity applies, however, it is not an impenetrable shield to suit. For example, state officials can often be sued for violating a person's constitutional rights.4 Moreover, the protections of sovereign immunity can be waived, and courts have long held that states and their instrumentalities waive sovereign immunity when they initiate lawsuits in U.S. courts.5

Sovereign Immunity and Patent Law

Issues of sovereign immunity may arise whenever patent disputes involve state instrumentalities, such as state-supported universities. Occasionally, state instrumentalities are sued as infringers, but more often states and their universities are involved in patent disputes as patent owners. In fact, patent acquisition by U.S. colleges and universities has been increasing for decades. Between 1992 and 2012, university patenting tripled.6 In 2012 alone U.S. colleges and universities obtained more than 4,600 patents.7 Many universities that acquire patents are sufficiently intertwined with state governments to enjoy sovereign immunity. For example, courts have explicitly found that sovereign immunity applied to some of the top patenting universities, including the University of California, the University of Georgia, the University of Missouri, the University of North Carolina, North Carolina State University, the University of Maryland, the University of New Mexico, the University of Texas, and the University of Wisconsin.8

Even as patent owners, universities may be the target of patent suits when potential infringers seek declarations of non-infringement and invalidity. In such suits, sovereign immunity often applies and protects universities.9 In contrast, when universities initiate infringement suits, they waive any sovereign immunity, enabling accused infringers to counterclaim for declarations of invalidity and non-infringement. University waivers of sovereign immunity can impact other patent claims as well. For example, if a state university files a declaratory judgment action seeking to establish that it owns a patent obtained by university researchers, the university waives sovereign immunity regarding any compulsory counterclaims, such as a claim by the researchers for damages related to the claimed assignment.10 Likewise, a university that initiates an interference proceeding in the USPTO waives sovereign immunity regarding a district court review of the USPTO's decision under 35 U.S.C. § 146.11 A waiver of sovereign immunity by a university is, however, limited to the dispute in which the waiver is made. For example, a university does not waive sovereign immunity in one lawsuit by later filing a separate lawsuit against the same party regarding the same patent in another jurisdiction.12 Instead, the waiver of sovereign immunity applies only in the later-filed second suit. As the Supreme Court has stated, "A State's constitutional interest in immunity encompasses not merely whether it may be sued, but where it may be sued."13

The licensing of university patents further complicates the impact of sovereign immunity on some patent disputes.14 In patent disputes involving licensees, patent owners are often indispensable parties. For example, if a license is non-exclusive or is exclusive only within a certain field of use, the patent owner must be joined to the suit.15 Only in the case of exclusive licensees, can a patent dispute continue without the involvement of the patent owner.16 When a patent is owned by a state university, however, sovereign immunity may prevent the patent owner from being involuntarily joined. For instance, in A123 Sys., Inc. v. Hydro–Quebec, a potential infringer sued the patent licensee of the University of Texas seeking a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity.17 The Federal Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed the case because the University of Texas was an indispensable party that could not be forced to join the dispute due to issues of sovereign immunity.18

Sovereign Immunity and IPRs

Recently, issues of sovereign immunity have arisen in an important and relatively new patent context: inter partes review. These administrative proceedings allow a patent challenger to attack the validity of a patent on "a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications."19 These proceedings have been immensely popular with potential infringers for at least two reasons. First, in district court litigation patents are presumed valid, and any invalidity claim must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.20 In contrast, a patent challenger in an IPR must only prove invalidity by a preponderance of the evidence.21 Moreover, patents are given broader constructions in IPRs than in district court litigation. In an Article III district court, the scope of a patent is determined under the familiar Phillips framework by holistically considering the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the patent, its prosecution history, and limited extrinsic evidence.22 In an IPR, the validity of a patent is evaluated based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the patent, and ceteris peribus, broader patents are more likely to be invalid.23

On January 25, 2017, the PTAB held that sovereign immunity prevents an IPR from being brought regarding a patent owned by a state university.24 In Covidien v. University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc., the disputed patent was owned by the University of Florida Research Foundation ("UFRF"), which is the patent licensing arm of the University of Florida. UFRF licensed the patent to Covidien, but after the licensing relationship began to sour, UFRF sued Covidien in state court for breach of the agreement. Ultimately, Covidien petitioned the PTAB to institute three IPRs regarding the licensed patent. In response, UF asserted that sovereign immunity prevented the PTAB from hearing the IPRs.

In detailed, forty-page opinion, the PTAB accepted UFRF's argument. The PTAB noted that the Supreme Court held in Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority that state sovereign immunity applies in administrative proceedings that exhibit "strong similarities" to adversarial litigation in federal courts.25 Moreover, the PTAB continued, the Federal Circuit held in Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Curators of University of Missouri that a state university waived sovereign immunity when it initiated an interference proceeding.26 The Federal Circuit noted, "Like proceedings in the Federal Maritime Commission, contested interference proceedings in the PTO bear 'strong similarities' to civil litigation."27

Based on these decisions, the PTAB found that sovereign immunity prevented Covidien from initiating the IPRs. The PTAB provided an extensive list of substantial similarities between civil litigation and IPRs, including similarities in their adversarial nature, pleadings, discovery, briefing, rules of procedure, rules of evidence, and adjudicators. The PTAB recognized that there are also differences between IPRs and civil litigation, but found those differences to be insufficient to prevent Federal Maritime Commission from controlling. The PTAB also found the differences between IPRs and civil litigation to be similar to the differences between interferences and civil litigation, which the Federal Circuit considered insufficient to avoid sovereign immunity issues in Vas-Cath.

The PTAB then found that UFRF was a state instrumentality, even though it is a commercial licensing enterprise separate from the University of Florida. The PTAB noted that Covidien agreed that the University of Florida was an instrumentality of the State of Florida and that the sole function of UFRF is to support the University of Florida through the licensing of intellectual property rights, including the patent that Covidien licensed. The PTAB also noted that UFRF was defined under Florida law as a "direct-support-organization" for the University of Florida, and that that the University of Florida exercised significant control over UFRF. Finally, the PTAB noted that UFRF and the University of Florida are financially intertwined, with the University of Florida claiming both UFRF's assets and its liabilities. Although Covidien argued that UFRF was self-funded from its licensing efforts rather than receiving funding from the University of Florida, the PTAB found that "the evidence of record weighs more in favor of determining that UFRF is an arm of the State of Florida than not."

Impact of the PTAB's Decision on Universities

The immediate impact of the Covidien decision is to limit the use of IPRs to attack university-owned patents, but state-supported universities should also incorporate the decision to their licensing and litigation strategies as well.

To start, the decision likely enhances the value of exclusive licenses to university patents. The Federal Circuit has held that an exclusive licensee can bring infringement suits without joining the patent owner because the licensee "is effectively an assignee."28 As a result, the licensee "has standing to sue in its own name, without joining the patent holder."29 An exclusive licensee therefore does not act as the agent of the university and likely cannot waive sovereign immunity by filing an infringement lawsuit. Only the patent-owner – that is, the university – can waive its sovereign immunity, and any waiver must be "clear."30 Moreover, because state sovereign immunity is grounded in the Eleventh Amendment, it is a constitutional right, and "courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights."31 Courts therefore routinely reject claims of implied or constructive waiver of sovereign immunity. Even if an exclusive licensee for a patent owned by a state university brings an infringement action against an infringer, sovereign immunity should forestall an IPR attacking the patent. When licensed exclusively, university patents thus can be enforced while remaining immune to IPR counterattacks.

The Covidien decision also enhances the value of non-exclusive licenses to patents owned by state universities. To start, a non-exclusive licensee of a patent owned by a state university can use non-legal mechanisms for enforcing its patents, like cease-and-desist letters, without fear that the patent will be attacked through an IPR. Non-exclusive licensees of privately owned patents enjoy no such comfort. Indeed, sovereign immunity may apply to IPRs even if a state university joins with a non-exclusive licensee to file suit against an infringer. The Federal Circuit has held that a waiver of sovereign immunity is specific to an individual action. Indeed, the Court had held that a suit by a non-exclusive licensee and a state university against a potential infringer did not waive sovereign immunity regarding the same parties and the same patent in a different jurisdiction.32 Consequently, although a state university will waive sovereign immunity in court by filing an infringement action with a non-exclusive licensee, that waiver may not extend to an IPR. On the other hand, the PTAB may consider IPRs and district court litigation more closely linked than two district court actions in different jurisdictions given the stay and estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315.

Finally, tech transfer offices should consider the factors identified in the Covidien decision as demonstrating that UFRF was a state instrumentality. While greater autonomy from a university may make businesses, preserving the benefits of sovereign immunity may be worth the trouble.

Footnotes

1 Regents of the Univ. of California v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 429 (1997).

2 Id.; Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also supra note 8 (providing numerous examples of state universities that have been held to be state instrumentalities).

3 Lewis v. Midwestern State Univ., 837 F.2d 197, 199 (5th Cir. 1988)

4 Coll. Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 670 (1999).

5 Gunter v. Atl. Coast Line R.R., 200 U.S. 273, 284 (1906). 

6 Id.

7 USPTO, U.S. Colleges and Universities-Utility Patent Grants, Calendar Years 1969-2012, https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/univ/org_gr/t250_univ_ag.htm.

8 Chhim v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 836 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2016); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, 473 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Maryland Stadium Auth. v. Ellerbe Becket Inc., 407 F.3d 255, 262 (4th Cir. 2005); Joseph v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 432 F.3d 746, 748 (7th Cir. 2005); Regents Of Univ. Of New Mexico v. Knight, 321 F.3d 1111, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Lujan v. Regents of Univ. of California, 69 F.3d 1511, 1522 (10th Cir. 1995); Huang v. Bd. of Governors of Univ. of N. Carolina, 902 F.2d 1134, 1138 (4th Cir. 1990); Ezzell v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 838 F.2d 1569, 1571 (11th Cir. 1988).

9 A123 Sys., Inc. v. Hydro–Quebec, 626 F.3d 1213, 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

10 Knight, 321 F.3d at 1125.

11 Vas-Cath, 473 F.3d at 1380.

12 A123 Sys, 626 F.3d at 1220.

13 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 99 (1984) (emphases in original). 

14 University license is far more common than universities directly commercialize their patent rights. Walter D. Valdivia, University Start-Ups: Critical for Improving Technology Transfer, The Brookings Institute, Nov. 20, 2013, https://www.brookings.edu/research/university-start-ups-critical-for-improving-technology-transfer/.

15 A123 Sys, 626 F.3d at 1220 (finding a patent owner to be an indispensable party in a case involving an exclusive field-of-use license).

16 Int'l Gamco, Inc. v. Multimedia Games, Inc., 504 F.3d 1273, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

17 626 F.3d at 1220.

18 Id. at 1222.

19 35 U.S.C. § 311.

20 Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011).

21 35 U.S.C. § 316(e).

22 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

23 Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2146 (2016)

24 Covidien v. University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc., IPR2016-01274, IPR2016-01275, IPR2016-01276 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2017). 

25 535 U.S. 743, 756-67 (2002).

26 Vas-Cath, 473 F.3d at 1380.

27 Id. at 1382. 

28 Int'l Gamco, Inc., 504 F.3d at 1276.

29 Id.

30 Tegic Commc'ns Corp. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Texas Sys., 458 F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

31 Coll. Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 682 (1999) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).

32 A123 Sys, 626 F.3d at 1219. 

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions