it is true that the USPTO must correct the patent if plaintiff prevails, the requested relief is still prospective in nature, and does not involve a retroactive remedy. Thus, the Ex parte Young exception may still apply to the request for relief. Defendants contend that the Ex parte Young doctrine does not apply in this case because it is within the Supreme Court’s original and exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies between two or more states. 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a). In defendants’ view, because the real party in interest here is UMass, a co-owner of the patent, this case involves a battle between two state entities, and there is a sufficient remedy in an alternative forum, the Supreme Court. Cf. Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 73-74, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996)(<HOLDING>). However, UUtah chose to sue the state
holding that the 1996 personal restraint petition of an individual committed in 1980 pursuant to an insanity plea was procedurally barred because it was filed after the oneyear time bar set forth in rcw 1073090 and because the grounds for relief did not fall within the exceptions to the limitation period holding that plea in bar may be based only on grounds set forth in statute holding that challenge to state proceeding was barred by younger even if it was not barred by rookerfeldman holding it was the carefully crafted and intricate remedial scheme set forth by congress that barred ex parte young relief holding that it is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself