Case: 20-1469 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 12/10/2020
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
TEXAS SYSTEM,
Appellant
v.
BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE,
Appellee
ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF
COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Intervenor
______________________
2020-1469, 2020-1470
______________________
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2018-
00948, IPR2018-00949.
______________________
Decided: December 10, 2020
______________________
PETER E. MIMS, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Houston, TX, for
appellant. Also represented by ETHAN JAMES NUTTER, Aus-
tin, TX.
Case: 20-1469 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 12/10/2020
2 BOARD OF REGENTS OF UT v. BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
MICHAEL HAWES, Baker Botts, LLP, Houston, TX, for
appellee. Also represented by PAUL R. MORICO; JEFFREY
SEAN GRITTON, STEPHEN M. HASH, Austin, TX.
SARAH E. CRAVEN, Office of the Solicitor, United States
Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for interve-
nor. Also represented by MICHAEL S. FORMAN, THOMAS W.
KRAUSE, FARHEENA YASMEEN RASHEED.
______________________
Before PROST, Chief Judge, LOURIE and STOLL, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Baylor College of Medicine filed petitions seeking inter
partes review (“IPR”) of two patents owned by the Board of
Regents of the University of Texas System (“UT”). Arguing
that state sovereign immunity applies in IPR proceedings,
UT filed motions to dismiss the petitions. The Patent Trial
and Appeal Board (“Board”), relying on Regents of the Uni-
versity of Minnesota v. LSI Corp.,
926 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2019), cert. denied,
140 S. Ct. 908 (2020), denied UT’s mo-
tions. UT appealed. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(4)(A). See Univ. of Minn., 926 F.3d at 1331 n.2.
As UT recognizes, we held in University of Minnesota
that “sovereign immunity does not apply to IPR proceed-
ings when the patent owner is a state.” Appellant’s Br. 9
(citing Univ. of Minn., 926 F.3d at 1342). UT contends,
however, that “the University of Minnesota panel applied
the wrong standards and reached the wrong conclusion
when it held” that state sovereign immunity does not apply
to IPR proceedings. Id. But, as UT also recognizes, “[t]his
panel is bound by the University of Minnesota decision.”
Reply Br. 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Board.
AFFIRMED
