f11photo / Shutterstock.com
The result of the sovereign immunity bid mirrored previous cases but we did learn something about the opinions of Justices on the issue, says Gary Frischling of Milbank.
The denial of the petition for panel rehearing or en banc rehearing in Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v Baylor College of Medicine is not surprising.
The original panel opinion followed, with limited discussion, the earlier University of Minnesota decision where panel (Justices Dyk, Wallach and Hughes) held state sovereign immunity did not apply to inter partes reviews (IPRs) because an IPR represents the US government’s reconsideration of its initial patent grant.
The Univ of Minn panel found its reasoning to be in line with St Regis Band of Mohawk v Mylan (Justices Dyk, Moore and Reyna), which held, on similar grounds, that tribal sovereign immunity did not apply to IPRs.
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review (LSIPR) tracks the increasing challenges for intellectual property specialists in the rapidly evolving world of life sciences. From gene patents to stem cell research, we provide the very best news and analysis.
To continue reading this article and to access 4,500+ articles, our digital magazines and special reports published for LSIPR subscribers only then you will need a subscription.
If you are already subscribed please login.
Official LSIPR subscribers include:
Allen & Overy
Arnold & Siedsma
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch LLP (BSKB)
Carpmaels & Ransford
European Patent Office
George Washington Law School
Kirkland & Ellis International LLP
Marks & Clerk
NiKang Therapeutics Inc.
Powell Gilbert LLP
Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
World Intellectual Property Office
Patents, sovereign immunity, university, University of Texas, en banc, inter partes review