Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 20

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

17 

Opinion of the Court 

here.    Oil  States  does  not  challenge  the  retroactive  appli-
cation  of  inter  partes  review,  even  though  that  procedure 
was  not  in  place  when  its  patent  issued.    Nor  has  Oil 
States  raised  a  due  process  challenge.    Finally,  our  deci-
sion  should  not  be  misconstrued  as  suggesting  that  pa-
tents  are  not  property  for  purposes  of  the  Due  Process 
Clause  or  the  Takings  Clause.    See,  e.g.,  Florida  Prepaid 
Postsecondary  Ed.  Expense  Bd.  v.  College  Savings  Bank, 
527  U. S.  627,  642  (1999);  James  v.  Campbell,  104  U. S. 
356, 358 (1882). 

IV 
  In  addition  to  Article  III,  Oil  States  challenges  inter 
partes  review  under  the  Seventh  Amendment.    The  Sev-
enth  Amendment  preserves  the  “right  of  trial  by  jury”  in 
“Suits  at  common  law,  where  the  value  in  controversy 
shall  exceed  twenty  dollars.”    This  Court’s  precedents 
establish  that,  when  Congress  properly  assigns  a  matter 
to adjudication in a non-Article III tribunal, “the Seventh 
Amendment poses no independent bar to the adjudication 
of  that  action  by  a  nonjury  factfinder.”    Granfinanciera, 
S. A. v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, 53–54 (1989); accord, Atlas 
Roofing  Co.,  supra,  at  450–455.    No  party  challenges  or 
attempts to distinguish those precedents.  Thus, our rejec-
tion  of  Oil  States’  Article  III  challenge  also  resolves  its 
Seventh  Amendment  challenge.    Because  inter  partes 
review  is  a  matter  that  Congress  can  properly  assign  to 
the PTO, a jury is not necessary in these proceedings. 

V 
  Because  inter  partes  review  does  not  violate  Article  III 
or the Seventh Amendment, we affirm the judgment of the 
Court of Appeals. 

It is so ordered.