Perhaps this will help (also from I.V.):

In response to msg 103281 by joeytakasugi	view thread

Re: questions for lawyers

The US Constitution gives patents the label of a property right. Property rights can only be taken away by Article III Courts.

Article III courts are Federal Courts, NOT Administrative Agencies. So the issue is whether Congress can grant Administrative Law judges the right to take away property rights protected by the Constitution? This is not the Cuozzo case as such, but it seems that it has to been considered in light of Robert's questions. We'll see.

In Cuozzo, the government argues that decisions on validity using BRI are binding on Article III courts, leaving them nothing to decide. As such, a Federal Agency is taking away property rights. This is not Constitutional. Roberts hinted at this, but this issue is not before the Court in Cuozzo.

In Cuozzo, the issues are (1) the right to appeal a decision of the Agency to institute IPR, and (2) whether BRI is the appropriate test for an IPR.

The theories of Cuozzo touch closely on the Constitutional issue and that's why most patent lawyers were hoping Cooper would get combined with Cuozzo such that all the issues are resolved.

Hopefully, they'll consider Cooper when writing on Cuozzo.