Without Concrete Evidence of Potential Infringement Liability, Petitioner Lacked Standing to Challenge PTAB’s Final Written Decision on Appeal

September 16, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision for lack of standing where it found the appellant failed to provide evidence sufficient to show it suffered an injury in fact.

The appellant in this case filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,354,369 (“the ’369 Patent”) after the patentee filed two separate suits accusing the appellant’s optical filters of infringement. Ultimately, the PTAB issued a final written decision holding the appellant failed to show the challenged claims were unpatentable. Importantly, while the IPR was pending, the patentee dismissed both of its infringement lawsuits against appellant voluntarily and with prejudice.

The appellant sought review of the PTAB’s final written decision, but was immediately confronted with the threshold question of whether it had standing to appeal. Although a party does not need to establish Article III standing to appear before the PTAB, it must have standing to seek review of a PTAB decision in the Federal Circuit. And to establish standing, the appellant must show, inter alia, that it suffered an injury in fact, i.e., the appellant must allege a harm that is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

Here, the appellant alleged two harms: (1) supplying the filters that were the subject of one of the patentee’s dismissed lawsuits to overseas parties and (2) developing new models of filters. The Federal Circuit considered both grounds and found them insufficient to confer standing.

As to the first harm, the appellant argued it suffered an injury in fact because continuing to distribute its filters, created a likelihood that the patentee once again sue for infringement. As support, the appellant referenced a letter from the patentee stating it did not believe it was possible for the patentee to fulfill its supply agreements with non-infringing products. The court rejected this argument as too speculative because the letter was sent before the patentee filed its prior infringement lawsuits, both of which were dismissed with prejudice.

As to the second ground, the appellant submitted a declaration from its Deputy Director of Operation Management, asserting that it was continuing to develop new filters and it anticipates the patentee will accuse those products of infringement in the future. Here again, the Federal Circuit found the appellant’s alleged harm too speculative. The court noted that appellant’s declaration failed to provide detailed plans for the development of new products, any particulars about those products, or any explanation for how the products might implicate the ’369 Patent. While recognizing that a party need not concede infringement to obtain standing, the Federal Circuit maintained that the appellant’s vague and conclusory statements about future products could not meet the requirement for concrete plans for development. Because the appellant could not meet the requirements for Article III standing, the court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits of the PTAB’s decision.

Practice Tip: Any party contemplating filing an IPR petition should carefully consider whether it will be able to meet the requirements for standing in any subsequent appeal. In the event there are doubts about standing, the risk of not being able to appeal a final written decision must be weighed against the possible benefits of filing the IPR at that point in time. Ultimately, the decision of whether to file an IPR must balance the risk of no appeal against the relative merits of the IPR and the likelihood that an IPR could be filed in the future among other factors.

Platinum Optics Technology Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc., C.A. No. 2023-1227 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

© 2025 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.