Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to 
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington,  D. C.  20543,  of  any  typographical  or  other  formal  errors,  in  order 
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 16–712 
_________________ 

OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, PETITIONER 
v. GREENE’S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

[April 24, 2018] 

  JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. 
  The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 35 U. S. C. §100 
et seq.,  establishes  a  process  called  “inter  partes  review.”  
Under  that  process,  the  United  States  Patent  and  Trade-
mark  Office  (PTO)  is  authorized  to  reconsider  and  to 
cancel an issued patent claim in limited circumstances.  In 
this case, we address whether inter partes review violates 
Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.  
We hold that it violates neither. 

I 
A 
  Under  the  Patent  Act,  the  PTO  is  “responsible  for  the 
granting  and  issuing  of  patents.”    35  U. S. C.  §2(a)(1).  
When  an  inventor  applies  for  a  patent,  an  examiner  re-
views the proposed claims and the prior art to determine if 
the  claims  meet  the  statutory  requirements.    See  §§112, 
131.    Those  requirements  include  utility,  novelty,  and 
nonobviousness  based  on  the  prior  art.    §§101,  102,  103.  
The  Director  of  the  PTO  then  approves  or  rejects  the 
application.    See  §§131,  132(a).    An  applicant  can  seek 
judicial review of a final rejection.  §§141(a), 145.