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

Media Mention

Law360's Legal Lions of the Week: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

August 21, 2026

Commentary

Early Test of USPTO's Ex Parte Preorder Filing Leads to Re-Exam Denial

August 21, 2026

Commentary

East Texas Reclaims Its Patent Crown

August 21, 2026

Award/Ranking

31 Finnegan Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers 2027

August 20, 2026

Media Mention

Federal Circuit Backs Volkswagen’s $207,500 Fees Against NPE

August 19, 2026

Media Mention

VW Wins in Patent Appeal Over Electrically Controlled Glasses

August 19, 2026

Press Release

USPTO Denies Super Lighting Reexamination Request Following PVTECH Pre-Order Submission Under New USPTO Procedure

August 19, 2026

Commentary

Why Global IP Litigants Keep Turning to English Courts

August 19, 2026

Press Release

Federal Circuit Overrules Precedent En Banc in Finnegan Pro Bono Victory for Federally Employed Veterans

August 18, 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