October Term 2017 · Docket 16-712

Can executive branch judges cancel private patents?

Oil States argues the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violates the Constitution by cancelling patents. Greene's Energy defends the board's authority to review patent validity.

Official caption
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Allyson Ho argued that courts have adjudicated patent disputes for four hundred years.

    Ho claimed Congress improperly transferred this judicial power to an executive tribunal.

    Ho stated that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has five unusual features.

    Justice Ginsburg questioned whether the Patent Office can correct its own errors under Article III.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether Congress can assign patent cancellation to executive branch judges. Oil States claims this power belongs to Article III courts. Greene's Energy argues the board acts as a valid public rights tribunal.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 27, 2017.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Oil States wants the Supreme Court to strike down the inter partes review process.

Greene's Energy wants the Supreme Court to uphold the board's authority to cancel patents.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Oil States argues that cancelling a patent takes away private property rights.

Greene's Energy argues that patent validity is a public right that executive judges can review.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked if the Patent Office has an error correction mechanism within Article III.

Justice Kagan asked about the role of inter partes reexamination in correcting errors.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute determines who holds the power to cancel patents. It affects the stability of private property rights in technology. It defines the boundary between executive and judicial power.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON