Post­-Complaint Events or Transactions Cannot Cure Prudential Standing Defects

Jan 26, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

Alps South countered that it had prudential standing because the license agreement was amended after the complaint was filed, which retroactively granted Alps South all substantial rights effective as of the date of the original license agreement. Alps South also argued that the complaint was amended to reflect this amended license agreement, which cured Alps South’s prudential standing defect existed at the time the complaint was filed.

The Federal Circuit rejected Alps South’s arguments, holding that a jurisdictional defect that existed at the time the complaint was filed cannot be cured by post­filing activities or retroactive license agreements. It also held that a supplemental complaint does not become the operative complaint for determining jurisdictional and standing issues.

Alps South then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the Federal Circuit’s holdings, but the Supreme Court denied it without explanation, leaving the Federal Circuit’s holdings intact.

Alps South, LLC v. The Ohio Willow Wood Company, No. 15­567 (U.S. Supreme Court, Jan. 19, 2016).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 9, 2026

In the April 1, 2026 edition of the Official Gazette, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new procedural framework that permits patent owners to submit a limited, early response to a request for ex parte reexamination.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.