直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • IP Health Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Articles
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Webinars
  • Books

Article

Injury in Fact: Establishing IPR Petitioner Standing on Appeal

November/December 2021

IP Litigator

By Gracie K. Mills; J. Derek McCorquindale; Daniel C. Cooley

As Justice Breyer obliquely observed in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, a petitioner in an inter partes review (IPR) unsatisfied with a decision by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may “lack constitutional standing” to appeal that decision to the Federal Circuit. This is because while “Article III standing is not necessarily a requirement to appear before an administrative agency” like the PTAB, Article III standing is required for an appellant to the Federal Circuit. In Phigenix, Inc. v. ImmunoGen, Inc., the Federal Circuit articulated for the first time “the legal standard for demonstrating standing in an appeal from a final agency action,” such as a Final Written Decision (FWD) by the PTAB. This article explores that standard and its subsequent application by the Federal Circuit in appeals by IPR petitioners.

Read "Injury in Fact: Establishing IPR Petitioner Standing on Appeal"

Tags

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Final Written Decision, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

Related Practices

Post-Grant Proceedings

IPR, PGR, and CBM

Appeals of PTAB Trial Decisions

Related Industries

Electronics and Information Technology

Electronic Devices and Components

Life Sciences

Biotechnology

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Gracie_Mills
Gracie K. Mills
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4389
Email
J_Derek_McCorquindale
J. Derek McCorquindale
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2768
Email
Daniel_Cooley
Daniel C. Cooley
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2778
Email

Reprinted with permission from the IP Litigator, published by Wolters Kluwer. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

At the PTAB Blog

Not Crossing the Wire: Petitioner Merely “Expanded” on Previously Filed Arguments Rather Than Making “New” Arguments

May 25, 2022

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Time’s Up: The Federal Circuit Holds It Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Board’s Time-Bar Determination

May 19, 2022

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Applicants’ Statements During Prosecution Streamlines Scope of Claims for Multimedia Streaming Patent

May 18, 2022

At the PTAB Blog

To Err Is Human, To Forgive Divine – If There Was Error

May 17, 2022

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Components Without Amount or Function Limitations Anticipated by Bare Disclosure

May 9, 2022

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics Through March 31, 2022

April 29, 2022

Seminar

Use Your Discretion: Changing Standards at the PTAB

April 29, 2022

Stanford

Panel Discussion

Clerking at the Federal Circuit

April 27, 2022

Webinar

Articles

Federal Circuit Holds That Company Cannot Use Merger to Avoid Royalty Payments

April 26, 2022

Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2022 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP