About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristant #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« IBM Corp. v. Iancu (Fed. Cir. 2019) | Main | Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Int'l (Fed. Cir. 2019) »

May 15, 2019

Comments

It may be interesting to contrast this clear and direct decision with some of the arguments that have been made seeking to bootstrap the NON Article III portion of the dual-zone AIA created mechanism as a means to avoid having actual Article III standing.

Unfortunately the court’s “competitor standing” analysis is erroneous. Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970) (7:2) (Majority: Douglas, J.; Brennan and White, JJ. concurring in the result but dissenting in the treatment of the standing question) (Justices Brennan and White staunchly support the injury in fact test expressed in the Majority opinion written by Douglas, J.) (9:0); Companion case: Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159 (1970) (Originally Brennan, J. was assigned to write the opinion in Barlow) (Note: Dissenting Brennan, J. in Barlow/Data Processing is more liberal than Douglas, J. writing for the Majority in Data Processing/Barlow) (Court finding Competitor standing).

First, Data Processing is generally acknowledged as establishing the modern standing doctrine, and in Data Processing the Supreme Court recognized and finds competitor standing. See id. at 152. Second, the Data Processing Court had “no doubt” that the plaintiff suffered “injury in fact, economic or otherwise” because the alleged increased competition “might entail some future loss of profits.” The nature of injury in fact in Data Processing is seldom discussed at any length either in the briefs or opinions. But a close reading of Data Processing is very instructive and makes clear that court's opinion in AVX is not supported by the facts of Data Processing. In Data Processing the petitioner alleged, as its injury, that the [agency] ruling "might entail some future loss of profits" and that a defendant bank was "performing or preparing to perform services for two customers for whom petitioner... had previously agreed or negotiated to perform such services." These allegations did not involve “actual” injury in fact but rather an entirely speculative detriment/injury/harm: the possible loss of future profits and the possible disruption of relationships which seem to have been in the early (preliminary) negotiation stage. Yet, apparently on the basis of these allegations of possible future harm alone, the Data Processing Court found that "there can be no doubt that the petitioner plaintiffs had satisfied this [injury in fact] test.” Third, since Data Processing, and in all subsequent competitor standing cases with a similar procedural posture, the USSC never mentioned a “nonspeculatively threatened economic injury” requirement. The Data Processing line of cases support a finding of standing on appeal in Avx Corp. v. Presidio Components.

Jonathan,

Does that "close reading" move items from the dissent into being some type of holding?

Or should that close reading note that a certain desired view failed (turning a directed majority position writer into being a dissent writer)?

On that last note, this type of "lost majority position writer" status was also evident in what was to be the bookend patent case for Justice Stevens in Bilski (viewing his "concurrence" for what in truth it was: a dissent on what Justice Stevens wanted to do).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

May 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31