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NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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