RPX petitioned for inter partes review of ChanBond’s ’822 patent. The Board instituted the IPR and determined that RPX did not show any challenged claim to be unpatentable. RPX appealed the final written decision to the Federal Circuit. ChanBond moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that RPX lacked standing to appeal. The Court granted ChanBond’s motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that, because RPX could not show an “injury-in-fact,” RPX lacked Article III standing. RPX is seeking Supreme Court review.
Article III standing requires an actual “case or controversy.” To show a case or controversy, a party must demonstrate that it has suffered an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to the challenged action, and that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). To establish an injury-in-fact, a party must show that it suffered an injury that is both “concrete and particularized.” Id. And to constitute a concrete injury, the harm must “actual or imminent.” Id.
RPX’s “core business is in acquiring patent rights on the open market and in litigation to achieve peaceful resolution of patent disputes through rationally negotiated transactions.” Before the Federal Circuit, RPX argued that it has suffered at least three types of injury sufficient to establish Article III standing: (1) injury to its statutory rights; (2) injury to its standing relative to competitors; and (3) injury to its reputation of successfully challenging wrongfully issued patent claims. The Court addressed each claim of harm.
As to RPX’s first claim, the Federal Circuit relied on its decisions in Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, 753 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and in Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., 845 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2017), to reject RPX’s claim of injury to its statutory rights. The statute guarantees the right to seek cancellation of the patent, but it does not guarantee any outcome. And where the party seeking cancellation is not engaged in any potentially infringing activity, the statutory estoppel provisions do not constitute an injury-in-fact. As to RPX’s second claim, the Federal Circuit dismissed RPX’s reliance on the doctrine of “competitor standing.” While RPX lists its competitors as Unified Patents and Askeladden L.L.C., the Court determined that there was insufficient evidence in the record to prove that the Board’s determination would...
