Summary: Consumer advocacy group lacked standing to appeal PTAB’s patentability decision.

Case: Consumer Watchdog v. Wis. Alumni Research Found., No. 2013-1377 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2014) (precedential). On appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Reexamination No. 95/000,154. Before Prost, Rader and Hughes.

Procedural Posture: Third-party requester appealed PTAB decision affirming patentability. CAFC dismissed the appeal because the appellant did not have Article III standing.

  • Standing: The CAFC found that although appellant had a procedural right to appeal the PTAB decision affirming patentability, that right does not eliminate the requirement that a party invoking Article III jurisdiction have a personal stake in the outcome of the reexamination and an injury in fact. The appellant did not meet these requirements because it did not allege that it is engaged in any activity involving the claimed subject matter that could form the basis for an infringement claim, it did not allege that it intends to engage in such activity, and it did not allege that it is an actual or prospective licensee, or that it has any other connection to the claimed subject matter. The PTAB’s decision did not invade any legal right conferred by the inter partesreexamination statute.

Aryn Conrad