Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
753 F.3d 1258
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Consumer Watchdog appeals a PTO Board decision affirming the patentability of claims 1-4 of WARF's '913 patent.
- Consumer Watchdog filed an inter partes reexamination request in 2006 but has not alleged any involvement with embryonic stem cell research, nor that it is a competitor or licensee of the patent.
- The core dispute is whether Consumer Watchdog has Article III standing to appeal the Board's decision.
- The Board denied the reexamination request, and Consumer Watchdog challenged the decision in federal court.
- The district court and court of appeals concluded that Consumer Watchdog lacked injury in fact and dismissed the appeal.
- The court holds that standing is lacking because Consumer Watchdog's alleged injury is a general grievance and not a concrete, particularized injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Consumer Watchdog have standing to appeal? | Consumer Watchdog asserts injury in fact from burden on taxpayer-funded research in California. | WARF argues there is no injury in fact; the Board's denial did not violate a legal right conferred by statute. | No standing; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (injury in fact requires concrete, particularized harm)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishes three standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332 (2006) (procedural rights do not dispense with standing requirements)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing requires a concrete and particularized injury)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (concrete injury required for standing; mere conjecture insufficient)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (procedural rights alone do not establish standing)
- Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377 (2014) (statutory rights do not erase Article III standing requirements)
- Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 689 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (held various plaintiffs lacked standing in declaratory judgment action)