May 30, 2013
Authored and Edited by Anthony J. Lombardi; Michele C. Bosch
On May 8, 2013, a federal judge in Florida dismissed a constitutional challenge to the AIA’s first‑inventor-to-file system, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit. In dismissing the case, the judge ruled that plaintiff MadStad Engineering and its owner had not established a “certainly impending” injury.
MadStad argued it had standing based on four asserted injuries. First, due to the first-inventor-to-file system, it expended additional money to maintain heightened computer-security measures to protect its data concerning potential inventions from being hacked by intellectual-property thieves. Second, the first‑inventor-to-file system caused it to acquire and maintain additional equipment for in-house product development and testing so that it could avoid sending unpatented intellectual property to outside vendors. Third, the first-inventor-to-file system caused it to spend more time and incur higher costs to file additional patent applications to protect its ideas. And, fourth, it lost business and investment opportunities because the first‑inventor‑to‑file system deters inventors from sharing ideas with potential partners and investors.
In his order dismissing the case, the judge concluded that none of MadStad’s alleged injuries constituted a concrete and imminent injury-in-fact that was fairly traceable to the AIA’s provisions. Rather, the judge ruled, MadStad’s alleged injuries were based on an attenuated chain of possibilities and did not present a prospect of a “certainly impending” injury. According to the judge, a determination of the constitutionality of the AIA’s first‑inventor‑to-file system will have to “await a more tangible, immediate, defined, and sharp dispute by a more directly affected party.”
This ruling suggests the constitutionality of the first-inventor-to-file system will likely remain unanswered until an original inventor who files an application for an invention, but who was not the first to file an application for that same invention, is denied a patent and seeks relief in federal court.
Copyright © 2013 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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
May 9, 2024
Webinar
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.