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

14 

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

  The  Patent  Clause  in  our  Constitution  “was  written 
against  the  backdrop”  of  the  English  system.    Graham, 
383 U. S., at 5.  Based on the practice of the Privy Council, 
it  was  well understood  at  the  founding  that  a  patent  sys-
tem could include a practice of granting patents subject to 
potential  cancellation  in  the  executive  proceeding  of  the 
Privy Council.  The parties have cited nothing in the text 
or  history  of  the  Patent  Clause  or  Article  III  to  suggest 
that the Framers were not aware of this common practice.  
Nor  is  there  any  reason  to  think  they  excluded  this  prac-
tice during their deliberations.  And this Court has recog-
nized that, “[w]ithin the scope established by the Constitu-
tion,  Congress  may  set  out  conditions  and  tests  for 
patentability.”    Id.,  at  6.    We  conclude  that  inter  partes 
review is one of those conditions.4 
  For  similar  reasons,  we  disagree  with  the  dissent’s 
assumption that, because courts have traditionally adjudi-
cated  patent  validity  in  this  country,  courts  must  forever 
continue to do so.  See post, at 8–10.  Historical practice is 
not decisive here because matters governed by the public-
rights  doctrine  “from  their  nature”  can  be  resolved  in 
multiple ways: Congress can “reserve to itself the power to 

—————— 

4 Oil States also suggests that inter partes review could be an uncon-
stitutional  condition  because  it  conditions  the  benefit  of  a  patent  on 
accepting the possibility of inter partes review.  Cf. Koontz v. St. Johns 
River  Water  Management  Dist.,  570  U. S.  595,  604  (2013)  (“[T]he 
government may not deny a benefit to a person because he exercises a 
constitutional right” (internal quotation marks omitted)).  Even assum-
ing  a  patent  is  a  “benefit”  for  purposes  of  the  unconstitutional-
conditions  doctrine,  that  doctrine  does  not  apply  here.    The  doctrine 
prevents  the  Government  from  using  conditions  “to  produce  a  result 
which it could not command directly.”  Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 
593,  597  (1972)  (internal  quotation  marks  and  alterations  omitted).  
But  inter  partes  review  is  consistent  with  Article  III,  see  Part  III–A, 
supra,  and  falls  within  Congress’  Article  I  authority,  see  Part  III–C, 
supra,  so  it  is  something  Congress  can  “command  directly,”  Perry, 
supra, at 597.