CAFC Rejects Advocacy Group Standing in Patent Language Suit
The Federal Circuit held that inventor-advocacy groups lack Article III standing to sue the USPTO over allegedly misleading patent-grant language, finding that diverting resources to educate members is not a legally cognizable injury.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit by inventor advocacy groups challenging the "right to exclude" language on US patent grants. In US Inventor, Inc. v. Squires, the plaintiffs argued this language became misleading after the Supreme Court's eBay v. MercExchange decision made injunctive relief for infringement discretionary. The court found the groups lacked both organizational and associational standing.
Citing the Supreme Court’s holding in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the panel rejected the theory that an organization suffers a cognizable injury merely by diverting resources to educate its members about a government action. This decision significantly narrows a common strategy for public interest groups to establish standing when suing federal agencies, requiring a more direct injury than simply choosing to spend resources on counter-messaging. For associational standing, the court found that because the members were now aware of the eBay rule, they faced no real threat of future injury. Counsel for organizations involved in federal litigation should note the tightening of standing requirements.