Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2017 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

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

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

No. 16–712.  Argued November 27, 2017—Decided April 24, 2018 

Inter  partes  review  authorizes  the  United  States  Patent  and  Trade-
mark Office (PTO) to reconsider and cancel an already-issued patent 
claim in limited circumstances.  See 35 U. S. C. §§311–319.  Any per-
son  who  is  not  the  owner  of  the  patent  may  petition  for  review.  
§311(a).    If  review  is  instituted,  the  process  entitles  the  petitioner 
and the patent owner to conduct certain discovery, §316(a)(5); to file 
affidavits,  declarations,  and  written  memoranda,  §316(a)(8);  and  to 
receive  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Patent  Trial  and  Appeal  Board, 
§316(a)(10).    A  final  decision  by  the  Board  is  subject  to  Federal  Cir-
cuit review.  §§318, 319. 
  Petitioner  Oil  States  Energy  Services,  LLC,  obtained  a  patent  re-
lating  to  technology  for  protecting  wellhead  equipment  used  in  hy-
draulic fracturing.  It sued respondent Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 
in  Federal  District  Court  for  infringement.    Greene’s  Energy  chal-
lenged the patent’s validity in the District Court and also petitioned 
the PTO for inter partes review.  Both proceedings progressed in par-
allel.    The  District  Court  issued  a  claim-construction  order  favoring 
Oil  States,  while  the  Board  issued  a  decision  concluding  that  Oil 
States’ claims were unpatentable.  Oil States appealed to the Federal 
Circuit.  In addition to its patentability arguments, it challenged the 
constitutionality  of  inter  partes  review,  arguing  that  actions  to  re-
voke  a  patent  must  be  tried  in  an  Article  III  court  before  a  jury.  
While the case was pending, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in 
a  separate  case,  rejecting  the  same  constitutional  arguments  raised 
by  Oil  States.    The  court then  summarily  affirmed  the  Board’s  deci-
sion in this case. 

Held: