Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

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

7 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

6, 

p. 6 

(Nov. 

1700–1883, 

effort  to  override  a  patent  on  munitions  during  wartime, 
no  doubt  in  an  effort  to  increase  their  supply.    But  even 
then  appealing  to  the  Privy  Council  was  seen  as  a  last 
resort.    The  1779  petition  (the  last  Privy  Council  revoca-
tion  ever)  came  only  after  the  patentee  twice  refused 
instructions  to  litigate  the  patent’s  validity  in  a  court  of 
law.    Gómez-Arostegui  &  Bottomley,  Privy  Council  and 
Scire  Facias 
2017) 
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3054989  (citing  Board  of  Ord-
nance  v.  Wilkinson,  PC2/123  (1779),  and  PC1/11/150 
(1779)).  The Council did not act on the 1782 petition but 
instead  referred  it  to  the  Attorney  General  where  it  ap-
pears  to  have  been  abandoned.    Gómez-Arostegui  &  Bot-
tomley,  Privy  Council  and  Scire  Facias,  supra,  at  17–18.  
Meanwhile, in  response  to  the  1810  petition the  Attorney 
General admitted that scire facias was the “usual manner” 
of  revoking  a  patent  and  so  directed  the  petitioner  to 
proceed  at  law  even  as  he  suggested  the  Privy  Council 
might  be  available  in  the  event  of  a  “very  pressing  and 
imminent”  danger  to  the  public.    Id.,  at  20  (citing 
PC1/3919 (1810)). 
  In  the  end,  these  cases  do  very  little  to  support  the 
Court’s  holding.    At  most,  they  suggest  that  the  Privy 
Council  might  have  possessed  some  residual  power  to 
revoke  patents  to  address  wartime  necessities.    Equally, 
they might serve only as more unfortunate evidence of the 
maxim  that  in  time  of  war,  the  laws  fall  silent.5    But 
—————— 

Scottish  Lord  Advocate  “ ‘was  of  opinion,  that  the  question  should  be 
tried  in  a  court  of  law.’ ”    Gómez-Arostegui  &  Bottomley,  Addendum, 
supra, at 23 (citing Petition of William Cunningham, p. 5, Cunningham 
v. Simpson, Signet Library Edinburgh, Session Papers 207:3 (Ct. Sess. 
Feb. 23, 1796)). 

5 After all, the English statute of monopolies appeared to require the 
“force and validitie” of all patents to be determined only by “the Comon 
Lawes of this Realme & not otherwise.”  21 Jac. 1, c. 3, §2 (1624).  So 
the  Privy  Council  cases  on  which  the  Court  relies  may  not  reflect  the 
best understanding of the British constitution.