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

Standing Requirements for Appealing PTAB Decisions: Recent Developments

July 16, 2020

Westlaw Journal Intellectual Property

By Michael J. Flibbert; Michelle G. Rice

Although a party need not have Article III standing to appear before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), it must establish standing when appealing an adverse PTAB decision to the Federal Circuit. Building on the reasoning in a line of cases following GE, JTEKT, and AVX, the Federal Circuit has further elaborated on the particular standing requirements a party must meet to maintain an appeal. For instance, recently in Pfizer, Argentum, and Grit Energy, the Court closely examined the evidence required to show injury based on economic harm or infringement risk, and stressed that the appellant must prove that standing exists at the outset of the appeal and at all later stages.

In this article, Finnegan attorneys Mike Flibbert and Michelle Rice review the Federal Circuit’s analysis in recent standing cases, and provide practical considerations for parties seeking to establish, or refute, standing to appeal PTAB decisions. 

Read the full article here. 

Tags

Article III Standing

Downloadable Files

  • PUBLISHED - Westlaw Journal IP - Standing Requirements for Appea

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Michael J. Flibbert
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4493
Email
Michelle_Yongyuan_Rice
Michelle G. Rice
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4229
Email

©2020 Thomson Reuters. Originally published by Westlaw Journal Intellectual Property. 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

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

Conference

International Trade Commission Litigation & Enforcement

May 4-5, 2026

Washington, DC

Ad Law Buzz Blog

How to Survive a Section 230 Defense: Recent Cases Provide Guidance

May 1, 2026

Articles

Unpacking Squires’ Recent Discretionary Denial Guidance Focusing on American Manufacturing

April 24, 2026

Articles

Recent Developments in Video Privacy Protection Act Litigation

April 3, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for December 2025 - February 2026

March 31, 2026

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