The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has created a precedent, dismissing an appeal from a final written decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The petitioner, in this case, was ruled to have no standing due to the lack of injury in fact according to a report by JD Supra. The case, Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC, Case No. 22-1706, was heard by Judges Moore, Stoll and Cunningham.
This judgment carries considerable implications for legal professionals. Its specific context of the IPR proceeding, usually used to challenge the validity of a patent by a third party, underscores the deeper questions being addressed by the court concerning standing and injury.
In injury law, injury in fact is a requirement for a plaintiff to demonstrate that they have suffered a direct or substantial injury or harm that justifies judicial intervention. This precedential ruling reminds legal professionals that such justifiable, authentic injury should be demonstrated for the standing in an IPR proceeding.
While the petitioner’s arguments included assertions regarding potential future business plans and adverse priority findings, these were ultimately dismissed as insufficient to demonstrate an injury in fact. This case thus reaffirmed that an alleged injury must be concrete and not hypothetical or speculative, to constitute an ‘injury in fact’. The potential reverberations of this case on future IPR proceedings, in particular, require careful analysis.
In light of this ruling, it’s crucial for legal teams working on patent cases to revise their strategies in preparing for IPR proceedings. Speculative injuries or potential future losses won’t secure standing in the eyes of the court. Concrete evidence of injury is vital to establish standing in such cases henceforth.