About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristant #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Durum Wheat Genome Revealed | Main | Congress Releases Framework for Section 101 Reform »

April 15, 2019

Comments

"[T]his decision puts to rest whether a patentee can avoid IPR proceedings by invoking tribal sovereign immunity: a patentee cannot."

And thank heavens for that. Most tribes dodged a bullet here. If tribal sovereign immunity could be rented out by tortfeasors as a shield to their tortfeasing, there would be no option for the Congress but to curtail tribal sovereign immunity severely, and perhaps to abrogate it altogether. Mercifully, by making clear upfront that tribal sovereign immunity is not a salable commodity, the CAFC ensured that this gambit will not lead inevitably to the complete effacement of tribal sovereign immunity from the legal landscape.

I am not as sanguine as to the "benefit" of this decision, Mr. DeLassus.

I do believe that the animus comes from the view that the arrangement was a sham - and it would have been better for THAT to have been the focal point.

What this result does do is REMOVE a perfectly viable tool for Native American tribes to strike a bargain that could NOT be called a sham bargain.

There is NO benefit to that.

What this result does do is to broaden (impermissibly) the mere notion that a sham was in play. That term should NOT be so loosely bandied about (even if people do not like the deal engaged in). The term "sham" has a definite legal meaning, and what this denial of cert does is to not take the opportunity to clear up a purposefully muddied condition.

What this result does is CONDONE that purposeful muddying.

While there was certainly those in Congress that would have felt compelled to change/curtail/abrogate tribal sovereign immunity, I believe fully that such a move in Congress could well have backfired upon those IF a full and robust discussion were to have been held.

As is - we are left without that discussion. We are left with the mud.

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30