Patents Archives - IP UPDATE

Patents

Prosecution history primacy: “Consisting essentially of” means what applicant said it meant

by Peter Marston | Jul 10, 2025 | Life Sciences, Patents

In a decision that underscores the primacy of prosecution history to determine claim scope, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s interpretation of the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” holding that the patentee’s actions during prosecution narrowed the claims beyond the conventional construction. Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, Case No. 23-2173 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2025) (Scarsi, Dist. J., by designation; Taranto, Stoll, JJ.)

The case involved a method for reducing eye redness using low concentrations of brimonidine, a vasoconstrictive compound. Eye Therapies owns a patent that claims methods of administering brimonidine “consisting essentially of” the active ingredient. During inter partes review (IPR), the Board applied the typical construction of that transitional phrase, allowing for the presence of other active agents as long as they did not materially affect the invention’s basic and novel properties. Based on that reading, the Board found the claims obvious over prior art references that disclosed brimonidine in combination with other drugs. On appeal, Eye Therapies argued that the Board’s construction was too broad and inconsistent with the prosecution history.

The Federal Circuit agreed. Although “consisting essentially of” is generally understood to permit unlisted ingredients that don’t materially affect the invention, the Court emphasized that this meaning can be overridden by the intrinsic record. In this case, the applicant amended the claims to avoid prior art and repeatedly argued that the invention involved only brimonidine, with no other active agents. During the original prosecution, the examiner allowed the claims on that basis. The Court found these statements to be definitional, particularly in light of the applicant’s use of “i.e.” to equate the claim language with a brimonidine-only method. Given the clarity and consistency of the applicant’s position, the Court concluded that the prosecution history required a narrower reading than the one the Board used based on the phrase’s conventional meaning.

The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the patent specification disclosed embodiments containing additional active agents. That alone, however, did not justify a broader construction. The narrowing amendment came after the specification was drafted, and the Court reiterated that not every embodiment must fall within the scope of the claims, particularly when the claims have been narrowed during prosecution. The Court also noted that other embodiments in the specification were fully consistent with the narrower interpretation. Taken together, these factors reinforced the conclusion that the applicant’s prosecution statements – not the broader illustrative disclosures – defined the proper scope of the claims.

The Federal Circuit distinguished its 2009 decision in Ecolab v. FMC, where it declined to apply prosecution history disclaimer despite similar language. In Ecolab, the patentee initially stated that peracetic acid was the “sole antimicrobial agent,” but the examiner clarified that “consisting essentially of” did not mean “solely.” The applicant never repeated the statement and secured allowance on other grounds. The specification in Ecolab also described compositions that included other known antimicrobial agents, which supported the broader interpretation. In contrast, the applicant here amended the claims, consistently [...]

Continue Reading

Seeing double? Director instructs Board to resolve claim construction pre-institution

by Benjamin Ediger, Ph.D. | Jul 2, 2025 | Patents

The acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision to institute two inter partes review (IPR) petitions that challenged the same claims. The acting director determined that the two petitions primarily differed with respect to claim construction. In a decision designated as “informative,” he authorized the Board to resolve claim construction pre-institution in view of the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide’s (CTPG) direction that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc., IPR2025-00068; -00070 (PTAB June 25, 2025) (Stewart, Act. Dir.) The PTO designates a decision as informative when it provides “norms on recurring issues, guidance on issues of first impression to the Board, guidance on Board rules and practices, and guidance on issues that may develop through analysis of recurring issues in many cases.”

CrowdStrike submitted two IPR petitions that challenged the same claims of GoSecure’s patent. The Board instituted both IPRs. GoSecure requested director review, asserting that instituting both petitions was an abuse of the Board’s discretion. On review, the acting director determined that the Board abused its discretion in view of the CTPG’s direction.

The acting director concluded that the two petitions did not reflect an exception to the CTPG’s direction. He determined that CrowdStrike’s petitions were primarily distinguished by the constructions applied to a claim term. The acting director explained that the Board should have construed the term at issue prior to granting institution, concluding that the Board’s institution decision amounted to improper expansion of CrowdStrike’s permitted word count and placed a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and GoSecure that could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns. The acting director vacated and remanded the Board’s institution decision.

The acting director also instructed the Board that the patent owner should be allowed to “submit whatever arguments are necessary for the panel to make a claim construction determination” even if the patent owner has not addressed the issue.

When it comes to objective criteria of nonobviousness, nexus is looser for license evidence

by Amit Kumar Saha, PhD | Jun 26, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit partially reversed a decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, effectively relaxing the nexus requirements for patent licenses pertaining to their usage as objective indicia of nonobviousness. Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Roku, Inc. et. al., Case Nos. 23-1674; -1701 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2025) (Lourie, Reyna, Hughes, JJ.) (per curium).

Ancora owns a patent directed to limiting software use on a computer through license verification. The patented technology centers on storing an “agent,” which is a license verification program, in a computer’s basic input/output system (BIOS) rather than in volatile memory. In 2021, Nintendo, Roku, and VIZIO separately filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) challenging claims of Ancora’s patent. The Board consolidated the proceedings and ultimately found certain claims of the patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of two prior art references: Hellman (which discloses storing license information in nonvolatile memory) and Chou (which discloses a BIOS-level security routine). Ancora appealed.

Ancora raised three issues on appeal:

That the Board erred in construing the claim term “agent”
That even if the Board correctly construed “agent,” it nonetheless erred in determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on a combination of Hellman and Chou
That the Board erred in its analysis of secondary considerations of nonobviousness.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s construction of “agent” to mean “a software program or routine” with no further limitations. The Court disagreed with Ancora’s argument that “agent” was limited to use in software only, primarily because neither the patent nor prosecution history provided any disclaimer of hardware. For similar reasons, the Court also disagreed with Ancora’s argument that “agent” was limited to use at the operating-system level.

On the obviousness determination, the Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s conclusion that the combination of Hellman and Chou rendered the claims prima facie obvious. The Court rejected Ancora’s argument that the Hellman/Chou combination would not provide motivation to combine since they are redundant.

The Federal Circuit disagreed with the Board’s analysis of the objective indicia of nonobviousness, particularly the treatment of Ancora’s licensing evidence. The Board found that Ancora failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the claimed invention and evidence of two objective indicia of nonobviousness: industry praise and licensing.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board on industry lack of nexus for the alleged praise (where the Board found that praise for the invention in a press release and an agreement between Ancora and another company offering products using the patent was directed broadly to the patent and not specifically to the challenged claims). However, the Court found that the Board erred regarding the appropriate nexus as it relates to Ancora’s licensing evidence.

The Board found that Ancora failed to show a nexus between the challenged claims and two licenses it obtained through settlement agreements in other cases. The Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that the Board applied an overly stringent nexus standard inconsistent with precedent. While products may require detailed [...]

Continue Reading

Looks like estoppel, sounds like estoppel … but it’s just director discretion

by Amol Parikh | Jun 26, 2025 | Patents

The acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) granted a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial and denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, finding that the petitioner engaged in unfair dealings by challenging a patent on which its employees were the inventors. Tessell, Inc. v. Nutanix, Inc., IPR2025-00322 (PTAB June 12, 2025) (Stewart, Act. Dir.)

Four individuals were Nutanix employees when they invented the subject matter of the challenged patent. Two of the individuals left to form Tessell and later hired the other two. Tessell, which now includes nearly all of the inventors of the challenged patent, filed a petition for IPR arguing that the claims of the patent were unpatentable. Nutanix filed a request for discretionary denial, which Tessell opposed.

The doctrine of assignor estoppel generally prevents an inventor who has sold or assigned a patent from challenging the validity of the patent. Although assignor estoppel does not apply in IPR proceedings, the acting director explained that the PTO may consider unfair dealings as a factor when determining whether to exercise discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The acting director found that it was inappropriate for the inventors to have used PTO resources to obtain a patent only to later advocate for its unpatentability. The acting director therefore exercised discretion to deny institution.

Case closed: Commission sanctions ruling isn’t an import decision

by Jodi Benassi | Jun 26, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that a denial of sanctions at the International Trade Commission was not a “final determination” under trade law because it did not affect the exclusion of imported goods. Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v. ITC and Future Link Systems, LLC, Case No. 23-1187 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2025) (Reyna, Bryson, Stoll, JJ.)

In 2019, Future Link entered into a license agreement with MediaTek, Inc. (not a party to the present litigation), which included a provision for a lump-sum payment if Future Link filed a lawsuit against Realtek. Future Link subsequently initiated a patent infringement complaint against Realtek before the Commission. During the proceedings, Future Link settled with a third party and determined that the settlement resolved the underlying dispute, prompting it to notify Realtek and ultimately withdraw its complaint. Realtek moved for sanctions, citing the MediaTek agreement as improper, but the administrative law judge (ALJ), while expressing concern about the agreement’s lawfulness, found no evidence it influenced the complaint and denied sanctions. The Commission terminated the investigation after no petition for review of the ALJ’s termination order was filed. Realtek then petitioned the Commission to review the denial of sanctions, but the Commission declined, closing the sanctions proceeding. Realtek appealed to the Federal Circuit, not challenging the investigation’s termination but seeking an order requiring Future Link to pay a fine based on the alleged impropriety of its agreement with MediaTek.

Realtek argued that the Commission and the ALJ violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In response, the Commission and Future Link not only defended the denial on the merits but also challenged the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction and Realtek’s standing to appeal. The Court agreed that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6), which only authorizes review of final determinations under specific subsections of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337). Because the Commission’s denial of sanctions under subsection (h) does not constitute a “final determination” under § 1337(c), the Court declined to address standing or the merits of the sanctions issue.

The Federal Circuit emphasized that a “final determination” within the meaning of § 1295(a)(6) refers to decisions affecting the exclusion of imported articles, such as those made under subsections (d), (e), (f), or (g) of § 1337. Realtek argued that the Commission’s denial of its sanctions request qualified as a final merits decision, but the Court disagreed, citing long-standing precedent, including its 1986 decision in Viscofan, S.A. v. ITC, that limits appellate jurisdiction to exclusion-related rulings. Because the sanctions decision had no bearing on whether products were excluded from importation, the Court held that it lacked the authority to review and dismissed the appeal.

CRISPR Clarity: Enablement Is Analyzed Differently Under §§ 102 and 112

by Peter Marston | Jun 18, 2025 | Life Sciences, Patents

In a decision underscoring the distinct standards governing enablement under §§ 102 and 112, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s finding that a prior art reference was enabling for purposes of anticipation, even in the absence of working examples. Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp., Case Nos. 23-2186; -2187 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2025) (Prost, Linn, Reyna, JJ.)

The case centers on CRISPR, the gene-editing technology that has reshaped the frontiers of biology and biotechnology. Agilent owns patents that claim chemically modified guide RNAs (gRNAs) designed to improve stability and performance in CRISPR-Cas systems. Synthego filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition asserting that the patents were unpatentable. The Board found all claims unpatentable, relying on a 2014 publication by Pioneer Hi-Bred that disclosed similar modified gRNAs. Agilent appealed.

Agilent challenged the Board’s finding that the prior art was enabling, arguing that Pioneer Hi-Bred merely proposed a research plan without demonstrating which specific modifications would yield functional gRNAs. Agilent emphasized that the reference lacked working examples and disclosed numerous nonfunctional sequences, contending that a skilled artisan would not have been able to identify a successful embodiment without undue experimentation. It also argued that the nascent state of CRISPR technology in 2014 compounded the unpredictability, making the reference non-enabling. In support, Agilent relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Amgen v. Sanofi, where the Supreme Court invalidated a broad genus claim for failing to enable its full scope.

The Federal Circuit was not persuaded. The Court drew a clear distinction between enablement under § 112 (which governs patent validity) and enablement under § 102 (which governs anticipation). The Court explained that the bar is lower for the latter, and that a prior art reference need only enable a single embodiment within the scope of the claim. While Amgen involved § 112, the Court emphasized that this case turned on § 102, where the standard is less demanding.

The Federal Circuit grounded this distinction in both the statutory text and the underlying purpose of the respective provisions. Statutorily, § 112 requires that a patent specification enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to “make and use” the invention. Section 102, by contrast, contains no such requirement. This divergence reflects a difference in purpose: § 112 ensures that the patentee does not claim more than they have taught, thereby preventing overbroad monopolies. As the Supreme Court explained in Amgen, “[t]he more a party claims, the broader the monopoly it demands, the more it must enable.” But the Federal Circuit emphasized that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Amgen was rooted in the patentee’s burden to support the full scope of a genus claim under § 112. That concern, the Court explained, does not apply in the § 102 context, where the question is not how much the prior art claims, but whether it teaches enough for a skilled artisan to practice at least one embodiment without undue [...]

Continue Reading

Radio Silence Alone Doesn’t Prove Equitable Estoppel Defense

by Dexter Hamilton | Jun 18, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment grant based on an equitable estoppel defense, finding that the accused infringer failed to show that the patent owner’s silence or inaction influenced the decision to migrate to the accused system. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No. 23-2267 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2025) (Lourie, Dyk, Reyna, JJ.)

In 1998, Fraunhofer licensed patents related to satellite radio to WorldSpace International Network. This license was exclusive, with the right to sublicense. However, Fraunhofer also began a collaboration with XM Satellite Radio to develop satellite radio and required that XM obtain a sublicense from WorldSpace. XM ultimately launched a “high-band” satellite radio system. In 2008, XM joined Sirius Satellite Radio, to form Sirius XM (SXM). Sirius Satellite Radio had its own “low-band” system. The low- and high-band systems were incompatible, so SXM investigated which system it would use eventually, and it ultimately decided to shift toward the high-band system.

Meanwhile, WorldSpace filed for bankruptcy in 2008. In 2010, Fraunhofer, in its view, terminated its licensing agreement with WorldSpace. In 2011, XM formally merged with SXM. It is disputed whether SXM was licensed to the asserted patents after these events, but regardless, Fraunhofer remained silent until 2015, when it notified SXM that it believed that because its agreement with WorldSpace was supposedly terminated in 2010, the rights in the asserted patents had reverted to Fraunhofer, and thus SXM was not licensed and was infringing. Fraunhofer filed suit. However, the district court found that because of Fraunhofer’s silence, Fraunhofer was equitably estopped from bringing the patent infringement claims against SXM. Fraunhofer appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed. There are three requirements for a successful equitable estoppel defense:

The patentee must engage in misleading conduct leading the accused infringer to reasonably infer that the patentee does not intend to assert its patent against the accused infringer.
The accused infringer must rely on that conduct.
As a result of that reliance, the accused infringer must be in a position such that it would be materially prejudiced if the patentee was allowed to proceed with its infringement action.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that Fraunhofer’s refusal to raise the issue of potential infringement from 2010 until 2015, despite asserting that it reacquired the rights to the asserted patents in 2010, was misleading conduct. Fraunhofer knew that SXM’s product may have infringed the asserted patents and had previously required SXM to obtain a license to those patents. Fraunhofer also had built allegedly infringing features. Thus, it was reasonable for SXM to infer that Fraunhofer would not bring a claim against SXM.

However, the Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court on the issue of reliance. To show reliance, the Court explained that SXM must have established “that it at least considered Fraunhofer’s silence or inaction and that such consideration influenced its decision to migrate to the accused high-band system.” The evidence did not indisputably establish influence over SXM’s [...]

Continue Reading

No Blank Check: Vendor Can’t Claim Declaratory Judgment From Customer Lawsuits Alone

by Cecilia Choy, Ph.D. | Jun 18, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a declaratory judgment action, explaining that declaratory judgment jurisdiction does not “arise merely on the basis that a party learns of the existence of a patent owned by another or even perceives such a patent to pose a risk of infringement, without some affirmative act by the patentee.” Mitek Sys., Inc. v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, Case No. 23-1687 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2025) (Taranto, Schall, Chen, JJ.)

Mitek develops a mobile image capture software development kit called MiSnap. United Services Automobile Association (USAA) sent letters to and filed infringement claims against several of Mitek’s bank customers. Mitek sought a declaratory judgment that it and its customers did not infringe four USAA patents related to mobile check deposits, arguing that it had standing based on a reasonable apprehension of suit and indemnity demands from its customers. The district court dismissed the declaratory judgment action, which Mitek appealed. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s dismissal, finding that the decision lacked adequate explanation and support.

On remand, the district court again analyzed Mitek’s two jurisdictional bases for its declaratory judgment action: potential liability for infringement and alleged demands for indemnity made by licensees after USAA sent letters seeking to license USAA patents. The district court again dismissed the case, determining that Mitek could not establish a case or controversy between USAA and Mitek as to infringement, and determining that indemnification agreements and USAA’s letters to Mitek customers did not create a reasonable potential for Mitek’s indemnification liability. Even if it had jurisdiction, the district court stated that it would exercise its discretion to decline jurisdiction, because the best means by which Mitek could defend the MiSnap software used by the banks was to intervene in a future litigation brought by USAA against a Mitek customer regarding the asserted patents. Mitek again appealed.

The threshold question for declaratory judgment jurisdiction is “whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.”

Regarding Mitek’s infringement basis, the Federal Circuit found that Mitek did not establish a reasonable potential of the suit for infringement. The Court’s consideration also included post-filing events, including settlements of related customer suits and Patent & Trial Appeal Board decisions invalidating asserted patent claims. These developments further undermined any ongoing controversy. The Court then addressed the allegations of direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement:

Direct Infringement. Mitek admitted that MiSnap alone did not perform all elements of any asserted claim. USAA also never accused MiSnap of satisfying every limitation of an asserted claim. Instead, MiSnap’s “unadulterated” software implemented by third-party banks failed to meet certain elements of the asserted claims. And although Mitek stated that it evaluated the complete mobile deposit system, Mitek could not have had a reasonable apprehension of suit based on testing its [...]

Continue Reading

In Determining Subject Matter Eligibility, the Name of the Game Is the Claim

by Tim Dunker | Jun 18, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a district court grant of summary judgment of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in connection with a patent directed to remote check deposit technology, explaining that details in the specification but not recited in the claims could not be relied on to meet the test for abstraction. United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A., Case No. 23-1639 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2025) (Dyk, Clevenger, Hughes, JJ.)

The patent in issue was directed to a system for allowing a customer to deposit a check using the customer’s handheld mobile device and claimed a “system configured to authenticate the customer using data representing a customer fingerprint.”

After the United Services Automobile Association (USAA) sued PNC for infringement of the patent, both parties filed motions for summary judgment seeking an adjudication as to whether the claims were patent eligible under § 101. The district court granted USAA’s motion, finding that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea and therefore were patent eligible. After a five-day trial, the jury found no invalidity of the asserted claims and found that PNC had infringed. PNC appealed.

The Federal Circuit found that the asserted claim was directed to the abstract idea of depositing a check using a handheld mobile device. At Alice step one, the Court found that the invention claimed steps for carrying out the process of a mobile check deposit by “instructing the customer to take a photo of [a] check,” “using [a] wireless network” to transmit a copy of the photo, and having the configured system “check for errors.” The Court determined that this amounted to a routine process implemented by a general-purpose device. The Court further found that the claim recited routine data collection and analysis steps that have been traditionally performed by banks and people depositing checks – namely reviewing checks, recognizing relevant data, checking for errors, and storing the resultant data.

USAA argued that “accomplishing check deposit on a consumer device required the development of extremely non-obvious algorithms.” The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, noting that the Court focuses on the claims, not the specification, to determine eligibility, because “the level of detail in the specification does not transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method.” Since the claims did not recite the algorithms and neither the specification nor the claims contained a “clear description of how the claimed system is configured,” but only “a concept of improving the check deposit process,” the Court found that the claimed subject matter was directed only to an abstract idea.

At Alice step two (not addressed by the district court, which concluded that the claims passed muster at Alice step one), the Federal Circuit considered whether the claim elements contained an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. The Court found no inventive concept present, as computer-mediated implementation of routine or conventional activity is not enough to provide [...]

Continue Reading

Speculation of Harm Isn’t Standing: Not Every Adverse Board Decision Is Ticket to Appeal

by Keval Amin | Jun 12, 2025 | America Invents Act, Patents

After assessing whether a patent owner had standing to appeal the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s final written decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found no injury in fact to support Article III jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. Dolby Labs. Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, Case No. 23-2110 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2025) (Moore, Clevenger, Chen, JJ.)

Dolby owns a patent covering a prediction method involving an in-loop filter. Unified Patents, claiming to be the sole real party in interest (RPI), filed an inter partes review (IPR) challenging several patent claims as anticipated and obvious. Dolby contested the challenge, identifying nine additional entities it argued should have been named as RPIs (alleged RPIs). The Board declined to rule on Dolby’s inclusion, however, and proceeded with Unified as the sole RPI.

In its final written decision, the Board found that Unified failed to establish the unpatentability of any challenged claims. Consistent with the US Patent & Trademark Office’s practice, it also declined to address the RPI dispute, finding it immaterial – there was no evidence the alleged RPIs were estopped from filing their own IPRs later or that Unified had advantageously or strategically omitted them. Dolby appealed.

The Federal Circuit explained that when it reviews final Board decisions, its jurisdiction is constrained by Article III’s “Cases” and “Controversies” requirement. To establish standing, an appellant must demonstrate:

A concrete and particularized injury in fact that is actual or imminent, not speculative.
A causal link between the injury and the appellee’s challenged conduct.
A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable ruling.

Dolby asserted standing to appeal the Board’s refusal to address the RPI dispute based on three grounds:

Its statutory right to appeal as a “dissatisfied” party under 35 U.S.C. § 319.

The denial of its right to information under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
An injury in fact arising from potential breaches of license agreements by the alleged RPIs and possible conflicts of interest involving the Board’s administrative patent judges.

The Federal Circuit rejected Dolby’s argument that it had a right to appeal based solely on dissatisfaction with the Board’s decision. The Court explained that the right to appeal a Board decision under the America Invents Act (AIA) requires Article III standing. The Court also dismissed Dolby’s argument for a statutory right to RPI information, finding that the AIA does not create an informational right. The Court explained that unlike statutes such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act or the Federal Election Campaign Act, which expressly grant public access to information, the AIA lacks a public access provision and explicitly limits judicial review of IPR-related determinations, including RPI disclosures.

As to Dolby’s right to appeal the Board decision, the Federal Circuit found Dolby’s argument too speculative to establish standing, citing four key deficiencies:

Dolby failed to assert that any alleged RPIs were party to license agreements, undermining its claim of potential breach.