Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 7

4 

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

that  petitioner.    §317.    If  the  settlement  results  in  no 
petitioner remaining in the inter partes review, the Board 
can  terminate  the  proceeding  or  issue  a  final  written 
decision.  §317(a). 
  If  the  proceeding  does  not  terminate,  the  Board  must 
issue a final written decision no later than a year after it 
notices  the  institution  of  inter  partes  review,  but  that 
deadline can be extended up to six months for good cause.  
§§316(a)(11), 318(a).  If the Board’s decision becomes final, 
the  Director  must  “issue  and  publish  a  certificate.”  
§318(b).    The  certificate  cancels  patent  claims  “finally 
determined  to  be  unpatentable,”  confirms  patent  claims 
“determined  to  be  patentable,”  and  incorporates  into  the 
patent  “any  new  or  amended  claim  determined  to  be  pa-
tentable.”  Ibid. 
  A  party  dissatisfied  with  the  Board’s  decision  can  seek 
judicial  review  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  Federal 
Circuit.  §319.  Any party to the inter partes review can be 
a  party  in  the  Federal  Circuit.    Ibid.    The  Director  can 
intervene  to  defend  the  Board’s  decision,  even  if  no  party 
does.    See  §143;  Cuozzo,  supra,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  15).  
When  reviewing  the  Board’s  decision,  the  Federal  Circuit 
assesses  “the  Board’s  compliance  with  governing  legal 
standards  de  novo  and  its  underlying  factual  determina-
tions for substantial evidence.”  Randall Mfg. v.  Rea, 733 
F. 3d 1355, 1362 (CA Fed. 2013). 

II 
  Petitioner  Oil  States  Energy  Services,  LLC,  and  re-
spondent  Greene’s  Energy  Group,  LLC,  are  both  oilfield 
services companies.  In 2001, Oil States obtained a patent 
relating  to  an  apparatus  and  method  for  protecting  well-
head equipment used in hydraulic fracturing.  In 2012, Oil 
States sued Greene’s Energy in Federal District Court for 
infringing  that  patent.    Greene’s  Energy  responded  by 
challenging the patent’s validity.  Near the close of discov-