NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 16–712
_________________
OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, PETITIONER
v. GREENE’S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit
[April 24, 2018]
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
35 U. S. C. §100
et seq., establishes a process called “inter partes review.” Under that process, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is authorized to reconsider and to cancel an issued patent claim in limited circumstances. In this case, we address whether inter partes review violates Article III or the
Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. We hold that it violates neither.
I
A
Under the Patent Act, the PTO is “responsible for the granting and issuing of patents.”
35 U. S. C. §2(a)(1). When an inventor applies for a patent, an examiner reviews the proposed claims and the prior art to determine if the claims meet the statutory requirements. See §§112, 131. Those requirements include utility, novelty, and nonobviousness based on the prior art. §§101, 102, 103. The Director of the PTO then approves or rejects the application. See §§131, 132(a). An applicant can seek judicial review of a final rejection. §§141(a), 145.
B
Over the last several decades, Congress has created administrative processes that authorize the PTO to reconsider and cancel patent claims that were wrongly issued. In 1980, Congress established “
ex parte reexamination,” which still exists today. See Act To Amend the Patent and Trademark Laws,
35 U. S. C. §301
et seq. Ex parte re- examination permits “[a]ny person at any time” to “file a request for reexamination.” §302. If the Director determines that there is “a substantial new question of patentability” for “any claim of the patent,” the PTO can reexamine the patent. §§303(a), 304. The reexamination process follows the same procedures as the initial examination. §305.
In 1999, Congress added a procedure called “inter partes reexamination.” See American Inventors Protection Act, §§4601–4608,
113Stat.
1501A–567 to 1501A–572. Under this procedure, any person could file a request for reexamination.
35 U. S. C. §311(a) (2006 ed.). The Director would determine if the request raised “a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent” and, if so, commence a reexamination. §§312(a), 313 (2006 ed.). The reexamination would follow the general procedures for initial examination, but would allow the third-party requester and the patent owner to participate in a limited manner by filing responses and replies. §§314(a), (b) (2006 ed.). Inter partes reexamination was phased out when the America Invents Act went into effect in 2012. See §6,
125Stat.
299–305.
C
The America Invents Act replaced inter partes reexamination with inter partes review, the procedure at issue here. See
id., at 299. Any person other than the patent owner can file a petition for inter partes review.
35 U. S. C. §311(a) (2012 ed.). The petition can request cancellation of “1 or more claims of a patent” on the grounds that the claim fails the novelty or nonobviousness standards for patentability. §311(b)
. The challenges must be made “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.”
Ibid. If a petition is filed, the patent owner has the right to file a preliminary response explaining why inter partes review should not be insti- tuted. §313.
Before he can institute inter partes review, the Director must determine “that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged.” §314(a). The decision whether to institute inter partes review is committed to the Director’s discretion. See
Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v.
Lee, 579 U. S. ___, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 9). The Director’s decision is “final and nonappealable.” §314(d).[
1]
Once inter partes review is instituted, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—an adjudicatory body within the PTO created to conduct inter partes review—examines the patent’s validity. See 35 U. S. C. §§6, 316(c). The Board sits in three-member panels of administrative patent judges. See §6(c). During the inter partes review, the petitioner and the patent owner are entitled to certain discovery, §316(a)(5); to file affidavits, declarations, and written memoranda, §316(a)(8); and to receive an oral hearing before the Board, §316(a)(10). The petitioner has the burden of proving unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. §316(e). The owner can file a motion to amend the patent by voluntarily canceling a claim or by “propos[ing] a reasonable number of substitute claims.” §316(d)(1)(B). The owner can also settle with the peti- tioner by filing a written agreement prior to the Board’s final decision, which terminates the proceedings with respect to that petitioner. §317. If the settlement results in no petitioner remaining in the inter partes review, the Board can terminate the proceeding or issue a final written decision. §317(a).
If the proceeding does not terminate, the Board must issue a final written decision no later than a year after it notices the institution of inter partes review, but that deadline can be extended up to six months for good cause. §§316(a)(11), 318(a). If the Board’s decision becomes final, the Director must “issue and publish a certificate.” §318(b). The certificate cancels patent claims “finally determined to be unpatentable,” confirms patent claims “determined to be patentable,” and incorporates into the patent “any new or amended claim determined to be patentable.”
Ibid.
A party dissatisfied with the Board’s decision can seek judicial review in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. §319. Any party to the inter partes review can be a party in the Federal Circuit.
Ibid. The Director can intervene to defend the Board’s decision, even if no party does. See §143;
Cuozzo,
supra, at ___ (slip op., at 15). When reviewing the Board’s decision, the Federal Circuit assesses “the Board’s compliance with governing legal standards de novo and its underlying factual determinations for substantial evidence.”
Randall Mfg. v.
Rea, 733 F. 3d 1355, 1362 (CA Fed. 2013).
II
Petitioner Oil States Energy Services, LLC, and respondent Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, are both oilfield services companies. In 2001, Oil States obtained a patent relating to an apparatus and method for protecting wellhead equipment used in hydraulic fracturing. In 2012, Oil States sued Greene’s Energy in Federal District Court for infringing that patent. Greene’s Energy responded by challenging the patent’s validity. Near the close of discovery, Greene’s Energy also petitioned the Board to institute inter partes review. It argued that two of the patent’s claims were unpatentable because they were anticipated by prior art not mentioned by Oil States in its original patent application. Oil States filed a response opposing review. The Board found that Greene’s Energy had established a reasonable likelihood that the two claims were unpatentable and, thus, instituted inter partes review.
The proceedings before the District Court and the Board progressed in parallel. In June 2014, the District Court issued a claim-construction order. The order construed the challenged claims in a way that foreclosed Greene’s Energy’s arguments about the prior art. But a few months later, the Board issued a final written decision concluding that the claims were unpatentable. The Board acknowledged the District Court’s contrary decision, but nonetheless concluded that the claims were anticipated by the prior art.
Oil States sought review in the Federal Circuit. In addition to its arguments about patentability, Oil States challenged the constitutionality of inter partes review. Specifically, it argued that actions to revoke a patent must be tried in an Article III court before a jury. While Oil States’ case was pending, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in a different case, rejecting the same constitutional arguments.
MCM Portfolio LLC v.
Hewlett-Packard Co., 812 F. 3d 1284, 1288–1293 (2015). The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the Board’s decision in this case. 639 Fed. Appx. 639 (2016).
We granted certiorari to determine whether inter partes
review violates Article III or the
Seventh Amendment. 582 U. S. ___ (2017). We address each issue in turn.
III
Article III vests the judicial power of the United States “in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” §1. Consequently, Congress cannot “confer the Government’s ‘judicial Power’ on entities outside Article III.”
Stern v.
Marshall,
564 U. S. 462, 484 (2011). When determining whether a proceeding involves an exercise of Article III judicial power, this Court’s precedents have distinguished between “public rights” and “private rights.”
Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v.
Arkison, 573 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 6) (internal quotation marks omitted). Those precedents have given Congress significant latitude to assign adjudication of public rights to entities other than Article III courts. See
ibid.;
Stern,
supra, at 488–492.
This Court has not “definitively explained” the distinction between public and private rights,
Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v.
Marathon Pipe Line Co.,
458 U. S. 50, 69 (1982), and its precedents applying the public-rights doctrine have “not been entirely consistent,”
Stern, 564 U. S., at 488. But this case does not require us to add to the “various formulations” of the public-rights doctrine.
Ibid. Our precedents have recognized that the doctrine covers matters “which arise between the Government and persons subject to its authority in connection with the performance of the constitutional functions of the executive or legislative departments.”
Crowell v.
Benson,
285 U. S. 22,
50 (1932). In other words, the public-rights doctrine applies to matters “ ‘arising between the government and others, which from their nature do not require judicial determination and yet are susceptible of it.’ ”
Ibid. (quoting
Ex parte Bakelite Corp.,
279 U. S. 438, 451 (1929)). Inter partes review involves one such matter: reconsid- eration of the Government’s decision to grant a public franchise.
A
Inter partes review falls squarely within the public-rights doctrine. This Court has recognized, and the parties do not dispute, that the decision to
grant a patent is a matter involving public rights—specifically, the grant of a public franchise. Inter partes review is simply a reconsideration of that grant, and Congress has permissibly reserved the PTO’s authority to conduct that reconsideration. Thus, the PTO can do so without violating Article III.
1
This Court has long recognized that the grant of a patent is a “ ‘matte[r] involving public rights.’ ”
United States v.
Duell,
172 U. S. 576, 582–583 (1899) (quoting
Murray’s Lessee v.
Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 284 (1856)). It has the key features to fall within this Court’s longstanding formulation of the public-rights doctrine.
Ab initio, the grant of a patent involves a matter “arising between the government and others.”
Ex parte Bakelite Corp.,
supra, at 451. As this Court has long recognized, the grant of a patent is a matter between “ ‘the public, who are the grantors, and . . . the patentee.’ ”
Duell,
supra, at 586 (quoting
Butterworth v.
United States ex rel. Hoe,
112 U. S. 50, 59 (1884)). By “issuing patents,” the PTO “take[s] from the public rights of immense value, and bestow[s] them upon the patentee.”
United States v.
American Bell Telephone Co.,
128 U. S. 315, 370 (1888). Specifically, patents are “public franchises” that the Government grants “to the inventors of new and useful improvements.”
Seymour v.
Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 533 (1871); accord,
Pfaff v.
Wells Electronics, Inc.,
525 U. S. 55, 63–64 (1998). The franchise gives the patent owner “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States.”
35 U. S. C. §154(a)(1). That right “did not exist at common law.”
Gayler v.
Wilder, 10 How. 477, 494 (1851). Rather, it is a “creature of statute law.”
Crown Die & Tool Co. v.
Nye Tool & Machine Works,
261 U. S. 24, 40 (1923).
Additionally, granting patents is one of “the constitutional functions” that can be carried out by “the executive or legislative departments” without “ ‘judicial determination.’ ”
Crowell,
supra, at 50–51 (quoting
Ex parte Bakelite Corp.,
supra, at 452). Article I gives Congress the power “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” §8, cl. 8. Congress can grant patents itself by statute. See,
e.g., Bloomer v.
McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 548–550 (1853). And, from the founding to today, Congress has authorized the Executive Branch to grant patents that meet the statutory requirements for patentability. See 35 U. S. C. §§2(a)(1), 151; see also Act of July 8, 1870, §31,
16Stat.
202; Act of July 4, 1836, §7,
5Stat.
119–120; Act of Apr. 10, 1790, ch. 7, §1,
1Stat.
109–110. When the PTO “adjudicate[s] the patentability of inventions,” it is “exercising the executive
power.”
Freytag v.
Commissioner,
501 U. S. 868, 910 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (emphasis deleted).
Accordingly, the determination to grant a patent is a “matte[r] involving public rights.”
Murray’s Lessee,
supra, at 284. It need not be adjudicated in Article III court.
2
Inter partes review involves the same basic matter as the grant of a patent. So it, too, falls on the public-rights side of the line.
Inter partes review is “a second look at an earlier administrative grant of a patent.”
Cuozzo, 579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 16). The Board considers the same statutory requirements that the PTO considered when granting the patent. See
35 U. S. C. §311(b). Those statutory requirements prevent the “issuance of patents whose effects are to remove existent knowledge from the public domain.”
Graham v.
John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
383 U. S. 1, 6 (1966). So, like the PTO’s initial review, the Board’s inter partes review protects “the public’s paramount interest in seeing that patent monopolies are kept within their legitimate scope,”
Cuozzo,
supra, at ___ (slip op., at 16) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Thus, inter partes review involves the same interests as the determination to grant a patent in the first instance. See
Duell,
supra, at 586.
The primary distinction between inter partes review and the initial grant of a patent is that inter partes review occurs
after the patent has issued. But that distinction does not make a difference here. Patent claims are granted subject to the qualification that the PTO has “the au- thority to reexamine—and perhaps cancel—a patent claim” in an inter partes review. See
Cuozzo,
supra, at ___ (slip op., at 3). Patents thus remain “subject to [the Board’s] authority” to cancel outside of an Article III court.
Crowell, 285 U. S., at 50.
This Court has recognized that franchises can be qualified in this manner. For example, Congress can grant a franchise that permits a company to erect a toll bridge, but qualify the grant by reserving its authority to revoke or amend the franchise. See,
e.g., Louisville Bridge Co. v.
United States,
242 U. S. 409, 421 (1917) (collecting cases). Even after the bridge is built, the Government can exercise its reserved authority through legislation or an administrative proceeding. See,
e.g., id., at 420–421;
Hannibal Bridge Co. v.
United States,
221 U. S. 194, 205 (1911);
Bridge Co. v.
United States,
105 U. S. 470, 478–482 (1882). The same is true for franchises that permit companies to build railroads or telegraph lines. See,
e.g., United States v.
Union Pacific R. Co.,
160 U. S. 1, 24–25, 37–38 (1895).
Thus, the public-rights doctrine covers the matter resolved in inter partes review. The Constitution does not prohibit the Board from resolving it outside of an Article III court.
B
Oil States challenges this conclusion, citing three decisions that recognize patent rights as the “private property of the patentee.”
American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S., at 370; see also
McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v.
Aultman,
169 U. S. 606, 609 (1898) (“[A granted patent] has become the property of the patentee”);
Brown v.
Du- chesne, 19 How. 183, 197 (1857) (“[T]he rights of a party under a patent are his private property”). But those cases do not contradict our conclusion.
Patents convey only a specific form of property right—a public franchise. See
Pfaff, 525 U. S., at 63–64. And patents are “entitled to protection as any other property,
consisting of a franchise.”
Seymour, 11 Wall. at 533 (emphasis added). As a public franchise, a patent can confer only the rights that “the statute prescribes.”
Gayler,
supra, at 494;
Wheaton v.
Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 663–664 (1834) (noting that Congress has “the power to prescribe the conditions on which such right shall be enjoyed”). It is noteworthy that one of the precedents cited by Oil States acknowledges that the patentee’s rights are “derived altogether” from statutes, “are to be regulated and measured by these laws, and cannot go beyond them.”
Brown,
supra, at 195.[
2]
One such regulation is inter partes review. See
Cuozzo, 579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3). The Patent Act provides that, “[s]ubject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property.”
35 U. S. C. §261. This provision qualifies any property rights that a patent owner has in an issued patent, subjecting them to the express provisions of the Patent Act. See
eBay Inc. v.
MercExchange, L. L. C.,
547 U. S. 388, 392 (2006). Those provisions include inter partes review. See §§311–319.
Nor do the precedents that Oil States cites foreclose the kind of post-issuance administrative review that Congress has authorized here. To be sure, two of the cases make broad declarations that “[t]he only authority competent to set a patent aside, or to annul it, or to correct it for any reason whatever, is vested in the courts of the United States, and not in the department which issued the pat- ent.”
McCormick Harvesting Machine Co.,
supra, at 609; accord,
American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U. S., at 364. But those cases were decided under the Patent Act of 1870. See
id., at 371;
McCormick Harvesting Machine Co.,
supra, at 611. That version of the Patent Act did not include any provision for post-issuance administrative review. Those precedents, then, are best read as a description of the statutory scheme that existed at that time. They do not resolve Congress’ authority under the Constitution to establish a different scheme.[
3]
C
Oil States and the dissent contend that inter partes review violates the “general” principle that “Congress may not ‘withdraw from judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty.’ ”
Stern, 564 U. S., at 484 (quoting
Murray’s Lessee, 18 How., at 284). They argue that this is so because patent validity was often decided in English courts of law in the 18th century. For example, if a patent owner brought an infringement action, the defendant could challenge the validity of the patent as an affirmative defense. See Lemley, Why Do Juries Decide If Patents Are Valid? 99 Va. L. Rev. 1673, 1682, 1685–1686, and n. 52 (2013). Or, an individual could challenge the validity of a patent by filing a writ of
scire facias in the Court of Chancery, which would sit as a law court when adjudicating the writ. See
id., at 1683–1685, and n. 44; Bottomley, Patent Cases in the Court of Chancery, 1714–58, 35 J. Legal Hist. 27, 36–37, 41–43 (2014).
But this history does not establish that patent validity is a matter that, “from its nature,” must be decided by a court.
Stern,
supra, at 484 (quoting
Murray’s Lessee,
supra, at 284). The aforementioned proceedings were between private parties. But there was another means of canceling a patent in 18th-century England, which more closely resembles inter partes review: a petition to the Privy Council to vacate a patent. See Lemley,
supra, at 1681–1682; Hulme, Privy Council Law and Practice of Letters Patent for Invention From the Restoration to 1794, 33 L. Q. Rev. 63 (1917). The Privy Council was composed of the Crown’s advisers. Lemley,
supra, at 1681. From the 17th through the 20th centuries, English patents had a standard revocation clause that permitted six or more Privy Counsellors to declare a patent void if they determined the invention was contrary to law, “prejudicial” or “inconvenient,” not new, or not invented by the patent owner. See 11 W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law 426–427, and n. 6 (1938); Davies, The Early History of the Patent Specification, 50 L. Q. Rev. 86, 102–106 (1934). Individuals could petition the Council to revoke a patent, and the petition was referred to the Attorney General. The Attorney General examined the petition, considered affidavits from the petitioner and patent owner, and heard from counsel. See,
e.g., Bull v.
Lydall, PC2/81, pp. 180–181 (1706). Depending on the Attorney General’s conclusion, the Council would either void the patent or dismiss the petition. See,
e.g., Darby v.
Betton, PC2/99, pp. 358–359 (1745–1746) (voiding the patent);
Baker v.
James, PC2/103, pp. 320–321, 346–347 (1752) (dismissing the petition).
The Privy Council was a prominent feature of the English system. It had exclusive authority to revoke patents until 1753, and after that, it had concurrent jurisdiction with the courts. See Hulme, 33 L. Q. Rev., at 189–191, 193–194. The Privy Council continued to consider revocation claims and to revoke patents throughout the 18th century. Its last revocation was in 1779. See
id., at 192–193. It considered, but did not act on, revocation claims in 1782, 1794, and 1810. See
ibid.;
Board of Ordinance v.
Parr, PC1/3919 (1810).
The Patent Clause in our Constitution “was written against the backdrop” of the English system.
Graham, 383 U. S., at 5. Based on the practice of the Privy Council, it was well understood at the founding that a patent system could include a practice of granting patents subject to potential cancellation in the executive proceeding of the Privy Council. The parties have cited nothing in the text or history of the Patent Clause or Article III to suggest that the Framers were not aware of this common practice. Nor is there any reason to think they excluded this practice during their deliberations. And this Court has recognized that, “[w]ithin the scope established by the Constitution, Congress may set out conditions and tests for patentability.”
Id., at 6. We conclude that inter partes review is one of those conditions.[
4]
For similar reasons, we disagree with the dissent’s assumption that, because courts have traditionally adjudicated patent validity in this country, courts must forever continue to do so. See
post, at 8–10. Historical practice is not decisive here because matters governed by the public-rights doctrine “from their nature” can be resolved in multiple ways: Congress can “reserve to itself the power to decide,” “delegate that power to executive officers,” or “commit it to judicial tribunals.”
Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U. S., at 451. That Congress chose the courts in the past does not foreclose its choice of the PTO today.
D
Finally, Oil States argues that inter partes review violates Article III because it shares “every salient characteristic associated with the exercise of the judicial power.” Brief for Petitioner 20. Oil States highlights various procedures used in inter partes review: motion practice before the Board; discovery, depositions, and cross-examination of witnesses; introduction of evidence and objections based on the Federal Rules of Evidence; and an adversarial hearing before the Board. See
35 U. S. C. §316(a); 77 Fed. Reg. 48758, 48761–48763 (2012). Similarly, Oil States cites PTO regulations that use terms typically associated with courts—calling the hearing a “trial,”
id., at 48758; the Board members “judges,”
id., at 48763; and the Board’s final decision a “judgment,”
id., at 48761, 48766–48767.
But this Court has never adopted a “looks like” test to determine if an adjudication has improperly occurred outside of an Article III court. The fact that an agency uses court-like procedures does not necessarily mean it is exercising the judicial power. See
Freytag, 501 U. S., at 910 (opinion of Scalia, J.). This Court has rejected the notion that a tribunal exercises Article III judicial power simply because it is “called a court and its decisions called judgments.”
Williams v.
United States,
289 U. S. 553, 563 (1933). Nor does the fact that an administrative adjudication is final and binding on an individual who acquiesces in the result necessarily make it an exercise of the judicial power. See,
e.g., Murray’s Lessee, 18 How., at 280–281 (permitting the Treasury Department to conduct “final and binding” audits outside of an Article III court). Al- though inter partes review includes some of the features of adversarial litigation, it does not make any binding determination regarding “the liability of [Greene’s Energy] to [Oil States] under the law as defined.”
Crowell, 285 U. S., at 51. It remains a matter involving public rights, one “between the government and others, which from [its] nature do[es] not require judicial determination.”
Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U. S., at 451.[
5]
E
We emphasize the narrowness of our holding. We address the constitutionality of inter partes review only. We do not address whether other patent matters, such as infringement actions, can be heard in a non-Article III forum. And because the Patent Act provides for judicial review by the Federal Circuit, see
35 U. S. C. §319, we need not consider whether inter partes review would be constitutional “without any sort of intervention by a court at any stage of the proceedings,”
Atlas Roofing Co. v.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n,
430 U. S. 442, 455, n. 13 (1977). Moreover, we address only the precise constitutional challenges that Oil States raised here. Oil States does not challenge the retroactive application of inter partes review, even though that procedure was not in place when its patent issued. Nor has Oil States raised a due process challenge. Finally, our decision should not be misconstrued as suggesting that patents are not property for purposes of the Due Process Clause or the Takings Clause. See,
e.g., Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v.
College Savings Bank,
527 U. S. 627, 642 (1999);
James v.
Campbell,
104 U. S. 356, 358 (1882).
IV
In addition to Article III, Oil States challenges inter partes review under the
Seventh Amendment. The
Seventh Amendment preserves the “right of trial by jury” in “Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars.” This Court’s precedents establish that, when Congress properly assigns a matter to adjudication in a non-Article III tribunal, “the
Seventh Amendment poses no independent bar to the adjudication of that action by a nonjury factfinder.”
Granfinanciera, S. A. v.
Nordberg,
492 U. S. 33, 53–54 (1989); accord,
Atlas Roofing Co.,
supra, at 450–455. No party challenges or attempts to distinguish those precedents. Thus, our rejection of Oil States’ Article III challenge also resolves its
Seventh Amendment challenge. Because inter partes review is a matter that Congress can properly assign to the PTO, a jury is not necessary in these proceedings.
V
Because inter partes review does not violate Article III or the
Seventh Amendment, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.