The PTAB recently limited companies’ ability to utilize the doctrine of sovereign immunity to avoid IPR proceedings. Companies have been assigning their patents to state entities and Tribal governments to protect their IP and attempt to avoid IPR proceedings. The law in this area, however, is in flux, so patent owners may want to reconsider any arrangements with such entities before transferring their patents.
State, Federal, and Tribal governments generally enjoy immunity from lawsuits per the United States Constitution. This means that patents owned by states (e.g., a state university) are immune from IPR proceedings. The same was thought to apply to Tribal governments, but the PTAB just put a halt to this practice.
In 2017, Allergan attempted to avail itself of the doctrine of sovereign immunity by assigning patents already challenged in IPR proceedings to the St. Regis Mohawk Nation (SRMN). The patents covered Allergan’s billion dollar per year blockbuster drug, RESTASIS®. Allergan paid SRMN $13.75 million to transfer the patents. SRMN then granted an exclusive license back to Allergan for up to $15 million per year in royalties. Allergan thought this agreement was a well-spent insurance policy that would protect future profits and Allergan’s patents from IPR proceedings.
The PTAB, however, just ruled that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply to IPR proceedings. Without expressly calling Allergan’s arrangement a sham transaction, the PTAB found that Allergan remains the effective patent owner due to the terms of the exclusive license agreement. The PTAB also side-stepped application of sovereign immunity by reasoning that the Board’s authority is limited to assessing the patentability of the patents, and therefore does not have authority over the patent owner—just the patents.
The law in this area is evolving quickly. Selling patents to Tribal governments to protect against IPR proceedings is no longer a viable option (to the extent it ever was). States still have limited immunity, but the PTAB may start scrutinizing the terms of the transfer agreement before granting immunity. Each transaction is unique, so it is important to fully analyze whether such an arrangement is right for your patents and business.
WHIPgroup is leading counsel for U.S. and international technology companies. We specialize in patent and trademark law.
Recently, WHIPGROUP engaged in an arbitration that included a five day hearing in the City. Here are some thoughts about why arbitration is different (not clearly better or worse) than litigation. Venue The AAA arbitral [Read More…]
WHIPGroup previously filed a Motion to Dismiss a patent infringement suit filed against its client TomTom in the Western District of Texas. Rather than opposing WHIPGroup’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiff MDSP Technologies LLC voluntarily dismissed [Read More…]
WHIPgroup succeeded in having anticipation and indefiniteness rejections overturned by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The claimed invention relates to a sequencing station that manages both sequencing and restacking tasks. The Examiner had [Read More…]