{"id":158,"date":"2018-10-18T22:38:47","date_gmt":"2018-10-19T02:38:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/?page_id=158"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:11:58","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:11:58","slug":"patents-in-the-political-branches","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/in-print-2\/volume-16-number-2-summer-2018\/patents-in-the-political-branches\/","title":{"rendered":"Patents in the Political Branches"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court granted certiorari in <em>Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene\u2019s Energy Group, LLC<\/em> to decide if administrative proceedings called inter partes review (IPR) violate the Separation of Powers by canceling patents in the executive branch rather than in Article III courts. Whether analyzed under the Supreme Court\u2019s precedents or under originalist theory, IPR survives this constitutional challenge. As a doctrinal matter, IPR satisfies the Supreme Court\u2019s \u201cpublic rights\u201d exception. As an originalist matter, the Founding Generation understood patents as discretionary privileges\u2014or at most as civil property rights\u2014but not as \u201ccore private rights\u201d requiring Article III adjudication. Legislation remains the proper avenue for proponents of strong patent rights to modify IPR to that end. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/23\/2018\/10\/16-2-Patents-In-Political-Branches.pdf\">Keep Reading Patents in the Political Branches<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene\u2019s Energy Group, LLC to decide if administrative proceedings called inter partes review (IPR) violate the Separation of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":129,"featured_media":0,"parent":131,"menu_order":11,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-158","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/129"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=158"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/158\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2647,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/158\/revisions\/2647"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/131"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}