The U.S. Supreme Court case Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC in 2017 revolved around the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR) - a process that allows third parties to challenge previously issued patent claims at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The petitioner, Oil States Energy Services, argued that IPR violated Article III and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution by adjudicating private property rights in a non-Article III forum without a jury. However, Greene’s Energy Group contended that patents are public rights granted by federal law and can be revoked through an administrative procedure like IPR. In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of IPRs with a 7-2 majority ruling stating that patents remain subject to USPTO's authority as they are essentially government-granted franchises.

In the dissenting opinion for Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, Justice Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts argued that patent rights are private property rights that cannot be withdrawn by a non-Article III forum without violating the Constitution. They contended that patents are not public rights but rather private ones granted to individuals who meet certain qualifications. The dissenters also pointed out historical precedents where courts have consistently treated patent rights as personal property and protected them with due process of law. They expressed concern about the potential implications of allowing an administrative agency (the Patent Trial and Appeal Board) to revoke patents instead of a federal court with full constitutional protections.