Document: 527 U.S. 627119 S.Ct. 2199144 L.Ed.2d 575 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES148 F.3d 1343, reversed and remanded.119 2199 No. 98 531 FLORIDA PREPAID POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION EXPENSE BOARD, PETITIONERv.COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK STATES ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALSFOR FEDERAL CIRCUIT [June 23, 1999] Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of Court. 1 In 1992, Congress amended patent laws expressly abrogated States' sovereign immunity from claims infringement. Respondent College Savings then sued State Florida for infringement, Court Appeals held that had validly State's infringement suits pursuant to its authority under §5 Fourteenth Amendment. We hold that, City Boerne v. Flores, 521 507 (1997), statute cannot be sustained as legislation enacted enforce guarantees Amendment's Due Process Clause, accordingly reverse decision Appeals. 2 * Since 1987, respondent Bank, a New Jersey chartered savings bank located in Princeton, Jersey, has marketed sold certificates deposit known CollegeSure CD, which are essentially annuity contracts financing future college expenses. obtained methodology, designed guarantee investors sufficient funds cover costs tuition colleges. Petitioner Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expenses Board (Florida Prepaid) is an entity created by administers similar prepayment available residents their children. See Fla. Stat. §240.551(1) (Supp. 1998). course administering program, directly indirectly infringed Savings' patent. 3 brought action 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) against United States District November 1994.1 By time filed suit, already passed Patent Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act (Patent Act), 271(h), 296(a). Before this legislation, stated only "whoever" without made, used, or patented invention (1988 ed.).2 Applying Court's Atascadero Hosp. Scanlon, 473 234, 242 243 (1985), Federal Circuit failed contain requisite statement intent abrogate state suits. See, e.g., Chew California, 893 F.2d 331 (1989). response decisions, "clarify States, instrumentalities officers employees acting official capacity, subject suit court any person patents plant variety protections." Pub. L. 102 560, preamble, 106 4230; see also H. R. Rep. 101 960, pt. 1, pp. 7, 33 (1990) (hereinafter Rep.); S. 280, 5 6 (1992) Rep.). Section 271(h) now states: "As used section, term 'whoever' includes State, instrumentality officer employee his capacity." 296(a) addresses issue even more specifically: 4 "Any shall not immune, eleventh amendment Constitution other doctrine immunity, section 271, violation title." Relying on these provisions, alleged willfully §271, well contributed induced sought declaratory injunctive relief damages, attorney's fees, costs. After decided Seminole Tribe Fla Florida, 517 44 (1996), moved dismiss grounds immunity.3 argued was unconstitutional attempt use Article I powers immunity. responded properly exercised power Amendment Clause §1 The intervened defend constitutionality statute. Agreeing with Savings, denied Prepaid's motion dismiss, 948 F. Supp. 400 (N. J. 1996), affirmed, 148 1343 (1998). 7 clearly expressed federal do so. Id., at 1347. reasoned property protections Congress' objective enacting permissible because it prevent depriving owners due process. id., 1349 1350. rejected argument deprived process, refused "deny all states courts, regardless extent procedural process may exist particular time." 1351. Finally, proportionate appropriate measure protect owners' Boerne, U.S., 519. concluded significant harm results patents, F.3d, 1353 1354, "[t]here no sound reason same civil consequences face private party infringer," 1355. granted certiorari, 525 __ (1999), reverse. II Eleventh provides: 8 "The Judicial Power construed extend law equity, commenced prosecuted one Citizens another Subjects Foreign State." 9 As recently explained Tribe, supra, 54: 10 "Although text would appear restrict III diversity jurisdiction 'we have understood stand so much what says, but presupposition . confirms.' That presupposition, first observed over century ago Hans Louisiana, 134 (1890), two parts: first, each our system; second, ' "[i]t inherent nature sovereignty amenable individual consent." 13 (emphasis deleted), quoting Federalist 81 For we reaffirmed unconsenting 'was contemplated when establishing judicial States.' Hans, 15." 11 Here, undisputed consented suit. argue impliedly waived Parden Terminal Co. Ala. Docks Dept., 377 184 (1964). argument, however, foreclosed companion case overruling constructive waiver theory announced Parden. Bank Prepaid, Ed. Expense Bd., 52_ (1999). 12 nonetheless contend enactment To determine merits proposition, must answer questions: "first, whether 'unequivocally expresse[d] immunity,' acted 'pursuant valid exercise power.' " 55. agree parties Act, made intention 'unmistakably clear language statute.' Dellmuth Muth, 491 223, 228 Indeed, could been clearer. ("Any patent."). Whether compel surrender purposes, matter. justified three sources constitutional authority: Art. I, §8, cl. 8; Interstate Commerce 3; Rep., 39 40.4 course, overruled plurality Pennsylvania Union Gas Co., (1989), prior finding congressional (the Clause). 72 73. makes powers; hence either Clause. Ibid. recognized this, otherwise. 14 Instead, secure deprivations law. provides relevant part: 15 "Section 1. No deprive life, liberty, property, 16 17 5. enforce, provisions article." 18 While reaffirming view does yield powers, holding Fitzpatrick Bitzer, 427 445 (1976), retains Our Fitzpatrick, "we Amendment, expanding expense autonomy, fundamentally altered balance struck Constitution." 59. further described "through extended intrude upon province therefore allowed guaranteed Amendment." 19 correct suggesting "appropriate" Enforcement sovereignty. itself apparently thought justified: 20 "[T]he bill acceptable method enforcing fourteenth amendment. Lemelson Ampex Corp. [372 708 (ND Ill. 1974)] form right compensation exists Additionally, courts continually rights prohibits law." (footnotes omitted). 21 "[t]he 'provisions article,' refers, include 22 But Boerne. There, Religious Freedom Restoration 1993 (RFRA), 107 1488, 42 2000bb et seq., exceeded insofar RFRA applicable States. "in direct to" Employment Div., Dept. Human Resources Ore. Smith, 494 872 (1990), Free Exercise First "neutral, generally applied religious practices supported compelling governmental interest." 512, 514. Through RFRA, reinstated interest test eschewed Smith requiring placing "substantial burden" free religion "compelling interest" employ "least restrictive means" furthering interest. 515 516. 23 enforcement §5, emphasized "remedial" nature. "[l]egislation deters remedies violations can fall within sweep if conduct intrudes into 'legislative spheres autonomy previously reserved 518 (citation noted, '[a]s broad is, unlimited,' ibid, "Congress changing is. It given 'to enforce,' constitutes violation," Canvassing history examining propriety various voting measures,5 explained: 24 "While line between measures remedy actions make substantive change governing easy discern, wide latitude determining where lies, distinction observed. There congruence proportionality injury prevented remedied means adopted end. Lacking such connection, become operation effect." 519 520. 25 thus invoke identify transgressing tailor legislative scheme remedying preventing conduct. 26 meet there little support record concerns supposedly animated 530 531. And, unlike cases, RFRA's were "so out proportion supposed remedial preventive object" "as responsive to, prevent, behavior." 532; 534 ("Simply put, counteract likely unconstitutional"). 27 Can viewed aimed securing owners? Following "evil" "wrong" intended remedy, guided principle "must judged reference historical experience reflects." 525. underlying here deny invasion rights. 37 38 ("[P]atent effectively damages resulting entity"); ("[P]laintiffs cases conduct"). unremedied give rise redress Act. 28 identified pattern let alone violations. Unlike racial discrimination confronting 527, came up evidence infringing part House Report acknowledged "many comply law" provide examples 38. eight patent-infringement 110 years 1880 1990. 1354. 29 Testimony before Subcommittee favor "states willing able respect fact few reported involving underlies point." Act: Hearing 3886 Courts, Intellectual Property, Administration Committee Judiciary, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., 56 Hearings) (statement William Thompson); 32 Robert Merges) ("[S]tates occasionally find themselves suits"). Even bill's sponsor conceded "[w]e massive widespread immunity." Kastenmeier).6 Senate Report, well, contains problem national import. At most, heard testimony might increase future, Hearings Jeffrey Samuels); 36 Merges); 57 Thompson), head off speculative harm. 30 argues pleading infringes patent, deprives patentee "takes" paying just required Fifth Amendment.7 declines based Just Compensation joins defense contends interests place Patents, long considered species property. Brown Duchesne, How. 183, 197 (1857) ("For, property"); cf., Consolidated Fruit-Jar Wright, 94 92, 96 (1877) ("A land"). such, they surely included "property" And protects know why legislate deprivation 31 Though purposes analysis, still proposition provides, "nor Const., Amdt. 14, added). This "[i]n claims, constitutionally protected unconstitutional; Zinermon Burch, 113, 125 deleted). Thus, plain terms import precedent, though interfering owner's exclude others, violate Constitution. inadequate remedies, injured result. Parratt Taylor, 451 539 (1981); Hudson Palmer, 468 517, 532 533 (1984); (O'Connor, J., concurring) ("[I]n challenging deprivation, claimant avail himself prove When adequate provided followed, result"). Congress, barely availability amounted did hear limited amount effect some uncertain.8 34 primary point witnesses, inadequate, rather less convenient than undermine uniformity Hearings, 43 ("[U]niformity again dictates mistake field variance among laws"), 34, 41 (Merges); 58 Thompson).9 said nothing about existence adequacy fleeting references repeating witnesses. 37, n. 158 ("[T]he tenuous vary significantly State"); ("[I]f patentees turn alternative forms result will patchwork laws, actually undermining goal system"). need construction undoubtedly important, factor belongs patent-power calculus, determination plea actor's negligent act causes unintended person's "deprive" meaning Daniels Williams, 474 327, 328 (1986). Actions predicated require showing infringe; instead, knowledge damages. (1994 ed., III); D. Chisum, Patents §16.02[2], p. (rev. ed. 1998) (" 'It elementary, entirely inadvertent unintentional patent' "). focus instances intentional reckless suggested most innocent worst negligent. always products [government] buy[s], anyone really aware status device product' "); ("[I]t should very rare willful agency"). Such conduct, suggests respond "widespread persisting rights" sort faced proper prophylactic legislation. 526. appears handful necessarily lack determinative, 531, identifying targeted wrong evil critical calculus "[s]trong address unwarranted another, lesser one," 530. best offers scant conclusion federal- actions. Because lack, object [they] 532. An unlimited range expose direct, induced, contributory cited acknowledging 'it[']s difficult us product state.' 38.10 Despite subjecting expansive liability, limit coverage arguable violations, refuses offer state-court whose infringed. Nor confine reach limiting certain types nonnegligent authorized policy; providing questionable high incidence immediately kinds possible indefinite duration. discussed approval limits imposed measures, 533, noted "a pervasively effort action, limitations kind tend ensure ends legitimate §5," 533. Act's indiscriminate scope offends principle, particularly incongruous light predicate remedy. sum, simply [the acts infringement] affected likelihood being unconstitutional." 40 avoiding liability federal-court scarce enough, plausible left them scarcer still. statute's apparent basic aims uniform footing regime.11 These concerns, enact after Tribe. judgment reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. Stevens, dissenting whom Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer join, dissenting. vests plenary copyrights. 8. Nearly 200 ago, exclusive litigation courts.1 Campbell Haverhill, 155 610, 620 (1895). 1992 clarified jurisdictional grant unambiguously authorizes instrumentalities, capacity. 4230, 271(h). Given absence effective statutory pre-emption Act) 45 recent amply supports assumes seldom infringe ante, 13, 17, infringements potentially permeate "unlimited conduct," 18. discussing comment briefly undergirds aspects system: uniformity. 46 commentaries Constitution, Story Copyright Clauses: 47 "It beneficial parties, government possess power; authors inventors, because, otherwise, subjected varying systems different subject, impair, destroy value rights; public, promote progress science useful arts, admit people large, short interval, full possession enjoyment writings inventions restraint." Story, Commentaries §502, 402 (R. Rotunda & Nowak eds. 1987). 48 James Madison utility scarcely questioned separately effectual provision [copyrights patents], anticipated point, instance Congress." 43, 267 (H. Lodge 1908) (J. Madison). 49 Sound reasons both subsequent 1800 vest courts. rules federal. From beginning, bring §4, 111. accordingly, strong interpretation statutes faithful goals stimulating rewarding disclosure novel advances technology. Graham John Deere Kansas City, 383 (1966). threatened, protection patentees, overprotection adverse impact competitive economy. Bonito Boats, Inc. Thunder Craft Inc., 489 141, 162 163 Therefore, consistency, uniformity, familiarity extensive body jurisprudence matters overriding significance area 50 often raises technical issues unfamiliar average trial judge.2 consideration, divergence circuits issues, 1982 consolidate appellate appeals Circuit.3 Although review decisions questions 1295. motivated creation undermined exception court. 51 Today acknowledges "need important," 16, discounts merely "Article calculus," establishes unquestionably appropriate. equally order close potential loophole scheme, which, undermined, decrease efficacy afforded holders. 52 sets general "There end." step inquiry, then, 53 recognizes, extends Ante, 9. decided, agree, power. 54 acknowledges, must, 14; (1877). Every "gives assignee 'exclusive make, use, vend discovery' period." Transparent-Wrap Machine Stokes 329 637, 643 (1947). suggests, constitute "deprivation" done negligently. 17. 55 stem tide prisoner litigation, avoid making "the font tort superimposed whatever administered States," 332 334 (1986), drawn misconduct. Injuries caused mere negligence prison officials leaving pillow stairs jail, example liberty On hand, misconduct, perhaps "recklessness gross negligence," deprivation. 334. disagree assumption standard applies rights, marginal relevance case: petitioner's willful.4 question presented case, infringers court, infringement.5 read opinion, negative facts case. relies perceived deficiencies reviewed clarifying "In violations." 11. quite unfair strike down findings supporting requirement yet articulated. abundantly attempting hurdle then-most-recent barrier erected "clear statement" rule Hospital 234 (1985).6 59 Nevertheless, considering leading referred hearing (CA Fed. 1990). fact, prompted consider became (1990). "unmistakably clear," Atascadero. Chew, F.2d, 60 Marian invented testing automobile engine exhaust emissions secured her discovery. Her primarily entities. Ohio resident, California grounds, granted. 332, stating "is us." implied 336. During Professor Merges draft claim. "This impossible, o[r] least difficult, Consequently, [state statutes] true avenue recovery." 33.7 61 insufficient compensate inventors Acting Commissioner stated: "If immune holders forced pursue uncertain, non-existent, 15. several Paperless Accounting, Mass Transit Administration, Civil HAR 84 2922 (D. Md. 1985) (cited Hearing, 56); Hercules, Minnesota Highway 337 795 (Minn. 1972) (House 51); Corp., 372 1974) (same). 62 addition, found increase. today dismisses rationale: "At harm." (citations especially universities, involved many since 1992. Regents Univ. Minn. Glaxo Wellcome, ___ ___, 2465 1999) (declaratory University Minnesota); Colo. Foundation, American Cyanamid 974 1339 (Colo. 1997) (patent Colorado); Gen-Probe, Amoco 926 (SD Cal. 1996) (suit alleging, inter alia, Amoco); Genentech Cal., 143 1446 Genentech); Ciba-Geigy Alza 804 614 (NJ 1992) (counterclaim California). 63 Furthermore, heavily system.8 Trademark Office issued 2,000 universities (both public private) 1986 alone. Chakansky, Profiles, Computer Law Strategist, 9, (1997). Royalty earnings licenses totaled $273.5 million 1995, 12% year. Eckstrom's Licensing Domestic Operations §11.06 Epstein beginning 1995. Brief York Property Association Amicus Curiae 2. All own patents. 44. 64 surmise recovery plaintiff obtain jurisdictions.9 But, ironic holding. pre-empted reasonable assume exist.10 suit,11 those have, contours widely.12 65 theory, conclude defendants. judges never exposure experienced decades, and, district reviewable Circuit. Surely undertake task reviewing every arguably misapplied law.13 1338 permit entertain named defendant, Alden Maine, all. Post, ____ (slip op., 2). 66 elected entities, entire category raise impartiality. concern authorization removal 1441 al. Marshall's narrow Cohens Virginia, Wheat. 264 (1821). he conflict right, "would hazarding too assert, judicatures exempt prejudices legislatures influenced, perfectly impartial tribunals." 386. 67 mandated 'widespread rights,' authority. surprising, therefore, compile analyzing (or thereof) afford retooled tort. believe needed thing; indeed, today. 68 my view, actual potential, "remedy actions." threatens pass altogether; unsupported conflicts reasoning 69 affirmed well-settled encompasses unconstitutional, 518. (RFRA) 536. 70 interpreted Court, it. crossed "corrective preventive, definitional." fairly characterized measure, "to interpret elaborate meaning" doing so, violated "power controversy remains Judiciary." 524. 71 difference striking. overrule substantiated fear unable unwilling patent-holders' "wide latitude" 520, suddenly indeed. "proportionality" component §5. "preventive sometimes appropriate" 73 achieved. appropriateness presented. South Carolina Katzenbach, 308. Strong one. 334." 74 congruence, redress, sweeping ensured "its intrusion level government, displacing prohibiting almost description matter." 75 Again, contrast stark. sole purpose charge whatsoever law, effectuates settled policy judges. precise used" (abrogation cases) achieved" (elimination risk law). 76 actors frequent. If indeed unusual, operate cases. common, common activities commercial arena increase, likewise expand harmony growth prevent. event laws. None underlay remotely implicated 77 puts position users system,14 virtually posture States.15 "When grants monopoly, effects pervasive; citizen escape reach." Goldstein 412 546, 560 (1973) (analyzing Recognizing injustice context, 1910, entitled, "An additional States." Ch. 423, 851. "may recover Claims." consistently maintained last 90 years. 1498. 78 judgment, paradigm power.16 IV 79 reasons, am convinced upheld cloaking increasing do, note continuing dissent aggressive jurisprudence; today, once demonstrates champion seeks express desire possessing: during hearings although invited chose testify opposition abrogation immunity.17 80 invalidates statements" (1985).18 clarifications fully assuming ample defenses squarely "plurality opinion," (1996). case's dramatic expansion judge-made unpredictable; dimensions defined present majority's perception penumbras text. (acknowledging says" omitted)). Until judicially crafted runs continue register agreement views dissents scholarly commentary respectfully dissent. Notes 82 separate alleging false 1946 (Lanham 1125(a). dismissed Lanham Third petition day 83 271 "(a) Except otherwise title, whoever makes, uses, sell, sells invention, imports therefor, "(b) Whoever actively induces liable infringer. "(c) sell machine, manufacture, combination composition, material apparatus practicing constituting knowing adapted staple article commodity commerce suitable substantial noninfringing infringer." III). 3. arm dispute 85 4. [t]o Progress Science Arts, Times Authors Inventors Right respective Writings Discoveries." regulate foreign Nations, Several Indian Tribes." portions below. 86 301 (1966); Katzenbach Morgan, 384 641 Oregon Mitchell, 112 (1970); Rome 446 156 (1980). 87 6. Representative Kastenmeier questioning M. Samuels, Trademarks, Department Commerce. discussion continued: "Mr. Kastenmeier: Accordingly, premature. affect [sic] not. Samuels: Well, you Mr. Chairman. raised issue. guess feeling taken possibility get "I statement, engaged who engage set forth owner dependent identity infringing, individual, corporation, State. "So philosophical matter, needs passed." 88 7. suggestion itself, Reports statute, mind explicit invoking think omission precludes consideration basis 89 ("Thus cause claim restitution come law"); You deceit try competition A occurred me recovery"); ("Another approach patentee's sold. true"); Thompson) ("In balance, level"); ("The Lane [v. Nat. Boston, 687 (Mass. 1988),] pointed appellant money recourse Massachusetts sue deceit, conversion, recovered confiscated purpose. statutes, courts' intellectual pursued comfort"); sounds like predict happen. rich speaker [Merges] out"). worth mentioning Aggrieved through payment full, §11.065 takings conversion claim, Jacobs Wind Electric Transp., 626 So. 1333 (Fla. 1993). 91 10. full: comments regarding copyright centered copyrighted textbooks music computer software. diverse substantial. Patented manner commonly machines, tools, instruments, chemicals, compounds, materials, devices processes commonplace. hospitals, prisons, libraries. build maintain roads. facilities equipment large numbers perform activities. It[']s state." Thompson). 92 (stating entities "shall title nongovernmental believes panoply entities"); 14. contrary dissent's intimation, post, put Under plaintiffs actions, punitive 284 285, relief, §283. waiving 1498(a) III), consent treble fees class specified instances. 93 Apr. 1800, ch. 25, 37; February 19, 1819, 481. 1836. §20.02[1][a], event, 1338(a) original arising relating protection, copyrights trade-marks. cases." second sentence §1338(a) (excluding worded way 1878. Rev. §711 (1878). criteria "arises under" see, Dale Tile Mfg. Hyatt, 46, (1888), established 'arising under' laws." §21.02[1][b]. Advisory Commission Reform recommended restricted single per circuit designate special expertise litigation. "With increased expertise, control proceedings, consistency application Of reduce flexibility currently file Yet practice 'costs' lost associated relatively minor comparison prospective benefits practice." Reform, Comer al., Secretary 99 (Aug. 1992). 95 Courts Improvement 1982, stated, "Patent area, undue forum-shopping unsettling inconsistency adjudications. Based compiled thorough Revision Appellate System produces outcomes courtrooms substantially result, regarded 'pro-patent' 'anti-patent,' expended 'shopping' favorable venue. survey practitioners, bar uncertainty precedent problem; acute." 97 312, (1981) omitted); 275, (1981). Paragraph complaint alleges '[d]efendant '055 lawful justification, patent.' App. Pet. Cert. 30a. practical rarely arise. Most notice actionable filed. usually send cease-and-desist charge-of-infringement letter." Pokotilow Siegal, Cease Desist Letters: Legal Pitfalls Patentees, Dec. 1997, Chairman Kastenmeier, following dialogue Thompson, President Association, definitively Circuit's (1990): Kastenmeier. 'You mentioned seem definitive question, unless Do anticipate us, litigation? Thompson. 'No, clear. Your drawn. seems match tests qualify 11th exactly how attorneys going Chairman, sane ones action.' Hearing). "Another true. (patentee) ascertain validity differing fifty disincentive commencement Moreover, vitiate major short, substitute 34. 100 Dueker, Biobusiness Campus: Commercialization University-Developed Biomedical Technologies, Food Drug 453 (1997); Bertha, Activities Research Universities, IDEA: Tech. 513 (1996); Eisenberg, Public Private Development: Technology Transfer Government-Sponsored Research, Va. 1663 majority finds dispositive, hope 1990 universities. 1131 Judiciary 1st 93, (1989); 497 Copyrights, Trademarks Sess. Perhaps importantly, requested Register Copyrights prepare study, transmittal letter as, factual inquiry governments licensing practices, any, works. prepared in-depth analysis current states, including assessment Congressional action. requested, Division Service conducted concerning Oman, Liability (June 1988) (transmittal letter). report industry groups, statistics, legal 5, 12, 95. passed, Supreme "takings" seek (1993). unambiguous (a) decision, (b) good well-motivated misinterpreted Wind, 2d, 1337 (Harding, dissenting). 103 Code §41 (1991) (claims administratively); W. VI §35 West Virginia defendant equity 104 12. §24 (1998) (waiving injuries motor vehicle, hospital correctional facility, dangerous condition building, highway road, snow ice, facility); Ann. §3.736 1998 (waiver invalid loss arises exercises care performance failure discretionary duty); Cts. Jud. Proc. 522(a)(5) (immunity occurrence exceeds $100,000). 105 13. advocating Circuit, infrequency leaves system assuring even-handedness nationwide administration trademark dependant party. school UCLA USC act." (1992). assertion 11, misleading. suits, "where infringer wanton disregard willful." Read Portec, 970 816, 826 (reversing award enhanced damages). "On mandate enhanced, damages." Attorney's "exceptional" circumstances. 285. Once determined "exceptional," discretion reasonable." Gentry Gallery, Berkline 1473, 1480 circumstances 20, remaining differences quintessentially concerns. procurement uniquely Boyle Technologies 487 500, (1988). importance military led fashion "Government contractors' immunity" waiting question. (Stevens, Injunctions Government's investment inventions. enjoin asserts arsenal Crozier Krupp A. G., 224 290, 302 (1912). 108 16. persuaded invoked deemed Breyer's post , force 109 representatives testify, none hearing"). 12202 (Americans Disabilities 1990); 106(a) (Bankruptcy 1994); 2617(a)(2) (Family Medical leave 1993); 1125(a) (Trademark Act); 1403(a) (Individuals 511 (Copyright Act).

Category: 9