Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-712_87ad.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

to  remove  existent  knowledge  from  the  public  domain.”  
Graham  v.  John  Deere  Co.  of  Kansas  City,  383  U. S.  1,  6 
(1966).  So, like the PTO’s initial review, the Board’s inter 
partes review protects “the public’s paramount interest in 
seeing that patent monopolies are kept within their legit-
imate scope,” Cuozzo, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 16) (inter-
nal quotation marks and alterations omitted).  Thus, inter 
partes review involves the same interests as the determi-
nation  to  grant  a  patent  in  the  first  instance.    See  Duell, 
supra, at 586. 
  The  primary  distinction  between  inter  partes  review 
and the initial grant of a patent is that inter partes review 
occurs  after  the  patent  has  issued.    But  that  distinction 
does not make a difference here.  Patent claims are granted 
subject  to  the  qualification  that  the  PTO  has  “the  au- 
thority  to  reexamine—and  perhaps  cancel—a  patent 
claim” in an inter partes review.  See Cuozzo, supra, at ___ 
(slip  op.,  at  3).    Patents  thus  remain  “subject  to  [the 
Board’s] authority” to cancel outside of an Article III court.  
Crowell, 285 U. S., at 50. 
  This Court has recognized that franchises can be quali-
fied  in  this  manner.    For  example,  Congress  can  grant  a 
franchise  that  permits  a  company  to  erect  a  toll  bridge, 
but  qualify  the  grant  by  reserving  its  authority  to  revoke 
or amend the franchise.  See, e.g., Louisville Bridge Co. v. 
United States, 242 U. S. 409, 421 (1917) (collecting cases).  
Even  after  the  bridge  is  built,  the  Government  can  exer-
cise  its  reserved  authority  through  legislation  or  an  ad-
ministrative proceeding.  See, e.g., id., at 420–421; Hanni-
bal Bridge Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 194, 205 (1911); 
Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U. S. 470, 478–482 (1882).  
The  same  is  true  for  franchises  that  permit  companies  to 
build railroads or telegraph lines.  See, e.g., United States 
v. Union Pacific R. Co., 160 U. S. 1, 24–25, 37–38 (1895). 
  Thus,  the  public-rights  doctrine  covers  the  matter  re-
solved  in  inter  partes  review.    The  Constitution  does  not