直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • News
  • Finnegan Facts
  • History
    • Finnegan VISION
    • Finnegan FORWARD
  • Pro Bono
  • Management
    • Pricing & Alternative Fee Arrangements
    • AFA Models We Offer
    • Contingency Fees
    • AI + KM

Charles T. Collins-Chase

Federal Circuit Dismisses Consumer Organization’s Appeal against Finnegan Client Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation for Lack of Standing

June 4, 2014

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 4, 2014

Contact:    Kara F. Stoll, Partner

                    Email

Federal Circuit Dismisses Consumer Organization’s Appeal against Finnegan Client Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation for Lack of Standing

 

WASHINGTON, DC — On Wednesday, June 4, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed for lack of Article III standing an appeal against Finnegan client Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) brought by consumer-advocacy organization Consumer Watchdog (CW). The dismissal preserves the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that all claims of WARF’s U.S. Patent No. 7,029,913 (the ’913 patent) directed to human embryonic stem cell cultures are patentable.

The appeal arose from an inter partes reexamination filed by CW. Following years of reexamination, the PTAB found the ’913 patent claims patentable over the asserted prior art. CW then appealed to the Federal Circuit, where Finnegan as appellate counsel countered CW’s assertions that the claims were both invalid over the prior art and directed to ineligible subject matter. However, in a case of first impression, the Court agreed with WARF and amici the United States and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that CW lacked standing to pursue its appeal. The Federal Circuit concluded that CW’s disagreement with the PTAB did not invade any legal right conferred by the inter partes reexamination statute and that CW had not identified any particularized, concrete interest in the patentability of the ’913 patent as, for example, a competitor, licensee, or stem-cell researcher. Because CW did not identify a particularized, concrete interest in the patentability of the ’913 patent, or any injury in fact flowing from the Board’s decision, the Court dismissed its appeal for lack of standing.

About Finnegan

With more than 350 intellectual property lawyers, Finnegan is one of the largest IP law firms in the world. From offices in Atlanta, Boston, Palo Alto, Reston, London, Shanghai, Taipei, Tokyo, and Washington, DC, the firm practices all aspects of patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret law, including counseling, prosecution, licensing, and litigation. Finnegan also represents clients on IP issues related to international trade, portfolio management, the Internet, e-commerce, government contracts, antitrust, and unfair competition. For additional information on the firm, please visit www.finnegan.com. Follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter.

###

Related Professionals

William B. Raich, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4210
Email

Related News

Commentary

Patent Strategy Could Shape Financing, Valuation and Risk in Offshore Energy Projects

June 30, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan’s European Practices and Attorneys Highlighted in 2026 Managing IP Rankings

June 25, 2026

Commentary

Zync Fights Block of ITC Trade Secret Case Against BMW

June 24, 2026

Press Release

BMW Obtains Preliminary Injunction Against Zync; Federal Court Orders Zync to Halt ITC Trade Secret

June 23, 2026

Commentary

BMW Secures Injunction Forcing Zync to Seek Stay of ITC Trade Secret Case

June 23, 2026

Award/Ranking

Finnegan Recognized in 2026 BTI Client Service A-Team Rankings

June 22, 2026

Award/Ranking

Six Finnegan Partners Recognized in the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global IP Lawyers

June 22, 2026

Commentary

U.S. Judge Rules Forum-Selection Clause Bars Zync from Pursuing ITC Trade Secret Case

June 15, 2026

Commentary

Finnegan Taps Partner from Kirkland to Boost IP Team

June 12, 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