Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank

Congress considered a law called the Patent Remedy Act (PRA), which eliminated state sovereign immunity for patent-infringement claims. While considering this law, Congress heard testimony from an individual who had been left with no remedy after a state university allegedly infringed her patent, as well as evidence that similar claims were likely to increase, especially against state research entities. Congress also heard general testimony that state-provided options were insufficient to protect patent holders from state infringement. Congress did not make specific findings in the legislative record about which states were not providing options to infringed patent holders or what those options were. Congress then enacted the PRA pursuant to (1) its powers under the Patent Clause and Commerce Clause in Article I of the United States Constitution and (2) its powers under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Over the next two years, multiple lawsuits were filed against state entities for patent infringement. One of those lawsuits was filed by College Savings Bank (the bank) (plaintiff). The bank sued a state agency, the Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board (the state agency) (defendant), in federal district court, alleging the agency had infringed a patent held by the bank. The state agency moved to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming sovereign immunity. The state agency argued that the PRA’s elimination of state sovereign immunity was invalid because it exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority. The district court ruled that the PRA’s immunity elimination was valid, and it allowed the bank’s claim to proceed. The court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.