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

« ACLU (Predictably) Opposes Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Proposal | Main | Xlear, Inc. v. STS Health, LLC (D. Utah 2019) »

June 04, 2019

Comments

"The Court's grant of cert. in Allen v. Cooper also stands in contrast to the Court's denial of cert. in... Saint Regis Mohawk v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals..."

Not much contrast. The two cases are *very* different.

First of all, The St. Regis Mohawks were asserting their patent against Mylan, and it can hardly come as a surprise that the act of asserting the patent should be expected to work a waiver of sovereign immunity. By contrast, North Carolina has not hailed Cooper into court in any fashion.

Secondly, SRV v. Mylan involved an administrative proceeding, not a trial in a court of law (as in the present Allen v. Cooper). The outcome in SRM v. Mylan hinged on the distinction between court of law proceedings and agency actions because "[g]enerally, immunity does not apply where the federal government acting through an agency engages in an investigative action or pursues an adjudicatory agency action." St. Regis Mohawks v. Mylan Pharma., 896 F.3d 1322, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

Finally, the St. Regis Mohawks were asserting tribal immunity. Tribal immunity is a creature of federal common law, and that same federal common law makes clear that Congress' power to revoke that sovereign immunity is plenary under the "commerce with tribes" clause. Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2030 (2014).

By contrast, state sovereign immunity is a creature of federal common law, but is rather a positive law deriving from the XI amendment to the constitution. Congress' power, therefore, to abrogate state sovereign immunity is much more restricted than its ability to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity. There is, in other words, a whole vista of legal analysis that was not conducted in SRM that would need to have been considered if that case had instead involved a state sovereign.

The differences between the present Allen case and the earlier SRM case are so many and different that the Justices' indifference to SRM are largely uninformative about their concerns in Allen.

"By contrast, North Carolina has not hailed Cooper into court in any fashion."

Whoops. Obviously enough I meant that North Carolina has not *haled Allen* into court.

The statement of "Not much contrast. The two cases are *very* different." is NOT supportable.

One only has to read what the court in the St. Regis Mohawk case ACTUALLY said to see why.

The court there held its position on the mechanism as to why Sovereignty -- as a general concept and NOT as differentiated by ANY differences that may exist between State Sovereignty and the "lesser" Indian Nations Sovereignty.

EVERY BIT of the St. Regis reasoning and holding -- on its face -- would apply to a case with the different facts of a State Sovereignty instead of the facts of an Indian Nations Sovereignty.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

August 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 31