直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

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

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology

Electronic Devices and Components

Life Sciences

Biotechnology

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

J. Derek McCorquindale
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2768
Email
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

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Lecture

Resolving Patent Suits Without Settlement Payments

September 3, 2026

Virtual

Conference

13th Annual Summit for Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law

July 29-30, 2026

Boston

Conference

2026 China Pharmaceutical Innovation Conference

July 22-24, 2026

Shanghai

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

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

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP