Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

16 

OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC v. GREENE’S 
ENERGY GROUP, LLC 
Opinion of the Court 

though inter partes review includes some of the features of 
adversarial  litigation,  it  does  not  make  any  binding  de-
termination regarding “the liability of [Greene’s Energy] to 
[Oil States] under the law as defined.”  Crowell, 285 U. S., 
at  51.    It  remains  a  matter  involving  public  rights,  one 
“between  the  government  and  others,  which  from  [its] 
nature do[es] not require judicial determination.”  Ex parte 
Bakelite Corp., 279 U. S., at 451.5 

E 
  We  emphasize  the  narrowness  of  our  holding.    We  ad-
dress the constitutionality of inter partes review only.  We 
do  not  address  whether  other  patent  matters,  such  as 
infringement  actions,  can  be  heard  in  a  non-Article  III 
forum.    And  because  the  Patent  Act  provides  for  judicial 
review  by  the  Federal  Circuit,  see  35  U. S. C.  §319,  we 
need  not  consider  whether  inter  partes  review  would  be 
constitutional “without any sort of intervention by a court 
at  any  stage  of  the  proceedings,”  Atlas  Roofing  Co.  v. 
Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 430 U. S. 
442,  455,  n. 13  (1977).    Moreover,  we  address  only  the 
precise  constitutional  challenges  that  Oil  States  raised 

—————— 

5 Oil  States  also  points  out  that  inter  partes  review  “is  initiated  by 
private parties and implicates no waiver of sovereign immunity.”  Brief 
for  Petitioner  30–31.    But  neither  of  those  features  takes  inter  partes 
review  outside  of  the  public-rights  doctrine.    That  much  is  clear  from 
United  States  v.  Duell,  172  U. S.  576  (1899),  which  held  that  the  doc-
trine  covers  interference  proceedings—a  procedure  to  “determin[e] 
which  of  two  claimants  is  entitled  to  a  patent”—even  though  interfer-
ence  proceedings  were  initiated  by  “ ‘private  interests  compet[ing]  for 
preference’ ” and did not involve a waiver of sovereign immunity.  Id., at 
582, 586 (quoting Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe, 112 U. S. 50, 
59 (1884)).  Also, inter partes review is not initiated by private parties 
in the way that a common-law cause of action is.  To be sure, a private 
party files the petition for review.  35 U. S. C. §311(a).  But the decision 
to institute review is made by the Director and committed to his unre-
viewable  discretion.    See  Cuozzo  Speed  Technologies,  LLC  v.  Lee,  579 
U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 9).