interference with business relationship with respect to a patented product); Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 89 S.Ct. 1902, 23 L.Ed.2d 610 (1969) (involving breach of an agreement relating to patented product); Intermedies In-Jusaid, Inc. v. Regents of Univ. of Minn., 804 F.2d 129 (Fed.Cir.1986) (involving enforceability of licensing agreement for use of patent). Moreover, I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that Jacobs was “denied total access to courts to redress its grievances.” Majority op. at 8. In fact, Jacobs had two remedies available. First, Jacobs could have sought an injunction against the State’s use of the patented tidal flow system, even though a federal patent claim for damages was barred. See Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) (<HOLDING>). Second, Jacobs could have presented a claims
holding that eleventh amendment bars federal suits against state courts holding that eleventh amendment did not bar an action in federal courts seeking to enjoin a state attorney general from enforcing a statute claimed to violate the us constitution holding young applicable in an action to enjoin state officials from enforcing a law in violation of the commerce clause holding that the eleventh amendment does not bar federal courts from enjoining unconstitutional actions of state officers recognizing the eleventh amendment does not bar the united states from suing a state