Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-877_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 15

12 

ALLEN v. COOPER 

Opinion of the Court 

to offer an adequate remedy for an infringement, because
such a remedy itself satisfies the demand of “due process.” 
See  Hudson  v.  Palmer,  468  U. S.  517,  533  (1984).    That 
means within the broader world of state copyright infringe-
ment is a smaller one where the Due Process Clause comes 
into play.

Because the same is true of patent infringement, Florida 
Prepaid again serves as the critical precedent.  That deci-
sion defined the scope of unconstitutional infringement in 
line  with  the  caselaw  cited  above—as  intentional  conduct 
for which there is no adequate state remedy.  See 527 U. S., 
at 642–643, 645.  It then searched for evidence of that sort 
of infringement in the legislative record of the Patent Rem-
edy Act.  And it determined that the statute’s abrogation of 
immunity—again, the equivalent of the CRCA’s—was out 
of all proportion to what it found.  That analysis is the start-
ing point of our inquiry here.  And indeed, it must be the 
ending point too unless the evidence of unconstitutional in-
fringement  is  materially  different  for  copyrights  than  pa-
tents.  Consider once more, then, Florida Prepaid, now not 
on Article I but on Section 5. 

In  enacting  the  Patent  Remedy  Act,  Florida  Prepaid
found,  Congress  did  not  identify  a  pattern  of  unconstitu-
tional  patent  infringement.  To  begin  with,  we  explained,
there was only thin evidence of States infringing patents at 
all—putting aside whether those actions violated due pro-
cess.  The  House  Report,  recognizing  that  “many  states
comply with patent law,” offered just two examples of pa-
tent  infringement  suits  against  the  States.  Id.,  at  640 
(quoting H. R. Rep. No. 101–960, pt. 1, p. 38 (1990)).  The 
appellate  court  below,  boasting  some  greater  research 
prowess, discovered another seven in the century-plus be-
tween 1880 and 1990.  See 527 U. S., at 640.  Even the bill’s 
House sponsor conceded the lack of “any evidence” of “wide-
spread violation of patent laws.”  Id., at 641 (quoting state-
ment of Rep. Kastenmeier).  What was more, there was no