Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 10

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

ties do not dispute, that the decision to grant a patent is a 
matter involving public rights—specifically, the grant of a 
public franchise.  Inter partes review is simply a reconsid-
eration  of  that  grant,  and  Congress  has  permissibly  re-
served  the  PTO’s  authority  to  conduct  that  reconsidera-
tion.    Thus,  the  PTO  can  do  so  without  violating  Article 
III. 

1 
  This  Court  has  long  recognized  that  the  grant  of  a  pa-
tent is a “ ‘matte[r] involving public rights.’ ”  United States 
v. Duell, 172 U. S. 576, 582–583 (1899) (quoting Murray’s 
Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 
284  (1856)).    It  has  the  key  features  to  fall  within  this 
Court’s  longstanding  formulation  of  the  public-rights 
doctrine. 
  Ab initio, the grant of a patent involves a matter “aris-
ing  between  the  government  and  others.”    Ex parte  Bake-
lite  Corp.,  supra,  at  451.    As  this  Court  has  long  recog-
nized,  the  grant  of  a  patent  is  a  matter  between  “ ‘the 
public,  who  are  the  grantors,  and  . . .  the  patentee.’ ”  
Duell, supra, at 586 (quoting Butterworth v. United States 
ex rel. Hoe, 112 U. S. 50, 59 (1884)).  By “issuing patents,” 
the PTO “take[s] from the public rights of immense value, 
and  bestow[s]  them  upon  the  patentee.”    United  States  v. 
American  Bell  Telephone  Co.,  128  U. S.  315,  370  (1888).  
Specifically,  patents  are  “public  franchises”  that  the  Gov-
ernment  grants  “to  the  inventors  of  new  and  useful  im-
provements.”    Seymour  v.  Osborne,  11  Wall.  516,  533 
(1871); accord, Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U. S. 55, 
63–64  (1998).    The  franchise  gives  the  patent  owner  “the 
right  to  exclude  others  from  making,  using,  offering  for 
sale,  or  selling  the  invention  throughout  the  United 
States.”    35  U. S. C.  §154(a)(1).    That  right  “did  not  exist 
at  common  law.”    Gayler  v.  Wilder,  10  How.  477,  494 
(1851).    Rather,  it  is  a  “creature  of  statute  law.”    Crown