March 10, 2015
Authored and Edited by Anthony A. Hartmann; Aaron J. Capron
On February 23, 2015, the Supreme Court denied without comment MadStad Engineering’s petition for Writ of Certiorari. MadStad sought review of the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of a district court’s dismissal for lack of standing of MadStad’s declaratory judgment case, in which MadStad challenged the constitutionality of the AIA’s first-inventor-to-file provisions.
In its petition, MadStad argued that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution provided a “specific mode of accomplishing the particular authority granted,” i.e., securing exclusive rights for limited times to inventors in their discoveries. MadStad concluded that “inventor,” when considered in the context of the time, was intended to mean the first inventor or discoverer; not the first inventor to file.
In response, the government first pointed out that the AIA defines “inventor” as the person “who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 100(f). It then emphasized that every patent system needs a type of priority rule (whether it be a first-inventor-to-file or first-to-invent system), and nothing in the Constitution requires the adoption of one priority rule over another.
The Supreme Court declined to address the parties’ constitutionality arguments, letting stand the Federal Circuit’s decision holding that MadStad did not have standing to challenge the AIA’s first-inventor-to-file provisions. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International, the Federal Circuit held that MadStad failed to show that it had suffered an “actual or imminent” injury from those provisions. It reasoned that while MadStad may have had numerous inventions in development, it failed to show how “hypothetical consequences of the legislation” would amount to the requisite level of injury.
As neither the Supreme Court nor the Federal Circuit addressed the merits of the constitutionality challenge, this issue remains open for a proper plaintiff.
Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.
Hybrid Conference
2024 California Intellectual Property Law Institute
October 21-22,2024
San Francisco
Conference
2024 Licensing Executives Society USA – Canada Annual Meeting
October 20-23, 2024
New Orleans
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Conference
2024 Corporate Counsel Women of Color: Career Strategies Conference
October 2-5, 2024
Las Vegas
Hybrid Conference
2024 New York Intellectual Property Law Institute
September 30 - October 1, 2024
New York
Seminar
Intellectual Property in the Age of AI: What Do You Own and How Do You Balance Risks?
September 25, 2024
Boston
Due to international data regulations, we’ve 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.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.