The Supreme Court has upheld the right of the Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) to reconsider its grant of a patent, referred to as an "inter partes" review, or essentially a second look at an earlier patent grant and the ability to cancel an already-issued patent in limited circumstance.

That came in a case involving a patent for oil-drilling technology, but it has implications for reining in patent trolls.

The decision was 7-2 with Justice Stephen Breyer concurring and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch dissenting, the court found that patent revocation does not have to be tried in court before a jury.

"[T]he fact that American courts have traditionally adjudicated patent validity in this country does not mean that they must forever do so," the majority concluded. "That Congress chose the courts in the past does not foreclose its choice of the PTO today."

"The decision to grant a patent is a matter involving public rights," they said. "Inter partes review is simply a reconsideration of that grant, and Congress has permissibly reserved the PTO’s authority to conduct that reconsideration."

"The USPTO is carefully considering the Supreme Court’s decisions and determining their impact on various proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.," said Paul Fucito, PTO press secretary.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google, was pleased.

"This [inter partes] review process has given those fighting patent troll lawsuits a way to petition to revoke low quality patents often used by patent trolls," CCIA said.

“In upholding the ‘inter partes review’ process, the Supreme Court has rightly rejected the idea that a patent that was mistakenly granted cannot be rescinded without a laborious judicial procedure," said John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge. “Had this case gone the other way, not only would the courts be clogged up with disputes that can be resolved more reasonably by the patent office itself, the holders of invalid patents would be able to more easily collect windfall payments for ‘inventions’ that don't really exist -- with consumers ultimately paying the costs."

“The inter partes review procedures, or IPR, were the bedrock of the America Invents Act," said Software & Information Industry Association president Ken Wasch. "They allow the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to take a second look at patents that may have been mistakenly issued. Today, the Supreme Court upheld both the right of Congress to regulate and reform the patent system, and the ability of our members to bring challenges to poor-quality patents so they can continue to innovate without spending millions in unnecessary litigation.”

Josh Malone, a fellow with patent rights advocate US Inventor saw it quite differently. "If a big corporation wants your patents or your land, they only need to convince their friends in the administrative tribunal or city council to do the job. No judge, no jury, no America," he said, calling the decision devastating decision for "inventors, aspiring inventors and patriots."

Malone was essentially echoing the dissents of Roberts and Gorsuch, in which Gorsuch wrote: "Can a political appointee and his administrative agents, instead of an independent judge, resolve the [patent] dispute? The Court says yes. Respectfully, I disagree."

A bipartisan bill has been introduced that would restore the presumption of injunctive relief if a valid patent is infringed, and takes other steps to sew up what the authors say is a court weakening of patent rights.

In fact, the STRONGER (Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience) Patent Act is actually a stronger version of the STRONG Act.

The goal of the bill is to make it easier and less costly for patent holders to enforce patents. While that would not sound like a partisan issue, the legal pursuit of patents by so-called "trolls" that buy up patents and try to extort payments is an issue that implicates patent enforcement, and the bill has at least on Republican backer.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), one of the bill's supporters, says the legislation manages to thread that needle. “We must preserve and strengthen the ability of legitimate patent holders to protect their innovations, while taking steps to narrowly target and deter abusive patent troll behavior," he said. "This bill strikes that balance.”

Others sponsoring the bill were Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), Tom Cotton (R- Ark.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii.).

Among the changes from the STRONG Act introduced in the last Congress are "repetitive, harassing petitions in the administrative reviews at the USPTO, reducing duplication between these reviews and district court, and providing a new approach to amending patent claims during them."

Medical Device manufacturers also saw it as a good compromise.

Mark Leahey, president and CEO of the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA), issued the following statement regarding introduction of the the act in the U.S. Senate:

“MDMA applauds the bipartisan work of Senators Tom Cotton, Chris Coons, Dick Durbin and Mazie Hirono for devising legislation that thwarts frivolous patent lawsuits while leveling the playing field for inventors," said Leahey. "The ‘STRONGER Patents Act’ provides a balanced, targeted approach to end abuse, support innovation and spur the lifesaving cures and therapies that patients and providers desperately need."

In a decision that bears on the "patent troll" issue, the Supreme Court has ruled that a defendant’s good-faith belief that a patent is not valid is not a defense against induced infringement if that belief turns out to be wrong.

The case involved Cisco WiFi networks and Commil USA, which asserted that Cisco had infringed Commil's patent and induced others -- the folks who bought and used the equipment -- to infringe as well.

Cisco was found liable in lower courts for both direct infringement and induced infringement. Cisco defended the inducement charge by saying it had had a "good faith" belief that Commil's patent was invalid, but a district court found that inadmissible. A federal appeals court ruled that the trial court had erred in excluding that argument, but the Supreme Court decided that a defendant's belief is not sufficient.

The court made it clear that lower courts have "the authority and responsibility to ensure that frivolous cases — brought by companies using patents as a sword to go after defendants for money — are dissuaded." Those are the so-called patent trolls Congress is currently trying to crack down on through legislation, though the court said there had been no suggestion Commil's claim in this case was frivolous.

But the court said there were sanctions for attorneys and ways for those accused of inducing to establish the validity of patents and that a belief defense would undermine the statutory presumption of a patent's validity. The majority said that belief might be a defense against liability, but not against infringement.

The decision was 6 to 2, with Justice Stephen Breyer not participating -- the justices do not have to say why they recuse themselves -- and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia dissenting from the finding that good faith belief is not a defense.

Scalia, who penned the dissent, said: "[I]t is impossible for anyone who believes that a patent cannot be infringed to induce actions that he knows will infringe it. A good-faith belief that a patent is invalid is therefore a defense to induced infringement of that patent."