1. Insights
  2. Blogs
  3. IP Newsflash

Federal Circuit Affirms that Tribal Immunity Is Not Available for Inter Partes Review

Jul 27, 2018

Reading Time : 2 min

Before the hearing, Allergan assigned its patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (“the Tribe”). Under the agreement, Allergan received an exclusive grant-back license to the patents. After the assignment, the Tribe moved to terminate the IPRs based on sovereign immunity, citing two PTAB decisions immunizing the Universities of Florida and Minnesota under the 11th Amendment.2The Board denied the Tribe’s motion on various grounds, including that tribal sovereign immunity was not available in an IPR.3

On appeal, the Tribe argued that tribal sovereign immunity should apply in IPRs because they are contested, adjudicative proceedings. In response, Mylan argued, among other things, that IPR is more like an agency enforcement decision, where tribal immunity does not apply. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that IPR is a “hybrid proceeding” with “adjudicatory characteristics,” but ultimately concluded that it was insufficiently adjudicatory to confer sovereign immunity. Four factors drove the Federal Circuit’s conclusion: (1) the Director possesses broad discretion in the decision to institute; (2) the Board may continue review even if the petitioner chooses not to participate; (3) the rules controlling IPRs are substantially different from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and; and (4) IPRs are not necessarily proceedings in which Congress contemplated tribal immunity to apply.

Although the Federal Circuit limited its holding to tribal sovereign immunity, the decision may have broader consequences for entities such as state universities that traditionally enjoy state sovereign immunity in IPRs. Indeed, the Federal Circuit noted the “many parallels” between tribal and state sovereign immunity. Given this language, it would not be surprising to see future challenges to state sovereign immunity in IPRs.

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Akorn, Inc., Nos. 2018-1638, 2018-1639, 2018-1640, 2018-1641, 2018-1642, 2018-1643 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2018)

1  Nos. 2018-1638, 2018-1639, 2018-1640, 2018-1641, 2018-1642, 2018-1643, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Jul. 20, 2018).

2  Reactive Surfaces LTD., LLP, v. Toyota Motor Corp., IPR2016-01914, IPR2017-00572, Paper 36 (PTAB Jul. 13, 2017); Covidien LP v. Univ. of Florida Research Found. Inc., IPR2016-01274, IPR2016-01275, IPR2016-01276, Paper 21 (PTAB Jun. 28, 2016); see also Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754 (1998) (“As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.”).

3  Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, IPR2016-01127-01132, Paper 129 (Feb. 23, 2018).

Share This Insight

Categories

Federal CircuitInter Partes Review
Subscribe to the IP Newsflash Blog Series >

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 5, 2025

District courts are split on whether a complaint can provide the required knowledge for post-suit indirect and willful infringement in that same lawsuit. Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware recently confirmed that, consistent with his prior opinions, the complaint cannot serve as the basis for knowledge for either a claim of post-suit indirect infringement or a demand for willfulness-based enhanced damages in that lawsuit.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.