Precedential Decision on Criteria for Standing to Appeal in CAFC
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) made a significant ruling in a precedential decision last Friday regarding the criteria for establishing standing to appeal. The case involved Platinum Optics Technology, Inc. (PTOT) and Viavi Solutions, Inc., with the opinion authored by Judge Claire C. Cecchi and the panel consisting of CAFC Chief Judge Moore and Judge Taranto.
Viavi owns U.S. Patent No. 9,354,369, titled “Optical Filter and Sensor System.” After unsuccessful infringement claims against PTOT in district court, PTOT sought inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which found PTOT had not proven the patent claims unpatentable as obvious.
In its appeal to the CAFC, PTOT argued that it had standing based on potential infringement liability due to supplying bandpass filters to overseas integrators and developing new models. However, the CAFC emphasized the need to establish standing by showing an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and not speculative.
PTOT’s argument regarding a potential threat of future infringement based on a letter from Viavi was deemed insufficient by the court. The letter, which suggested challenges in producing non-infringing products, lacked specificity and was sent before previous district court cases were dismissed with prejudice. The court found PTOT’s speculation about future suits to be unsubstantiated and lacking a substantial risk of infringement.
Regarding PTOT’s claim that Viavi would assert the patent against its new bandpass filters, the court dismissed this argument as well. A letter from PTOT’s Deputy Director of Operation Management failed to provide specific plans or details on how the new models would relate to the patent, resulting in vague and conclusory statements that did not establish standing.
Ultimately, PTOT’s failure to demonstrate concrete plans for future activities that posed a substantial risk of infringement led to the dismissal of its appeal. The CAFC did not delve into the merits of the PTAB decision as a result.
In conclusion, the CAFC’s decision underscores the importance of establishing a clear and specific injury in fact to confer standing to appeal. Speculative claims and vague assertions are insufficient to meet the constitutional requirements for standing in patent cases. This ruling sets a precedent for future appeals in the CAFC and reinforces the need for plaintiffs to provide solid evidence of potential harm to pursue legal action.
