DOLBY LABORATORIES LICENSING CORPORATION v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC
Before Moore, Clevenger and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: A patent owner lacks Article III standing to appeal an inter partes review decision on patentability when it cannot demonstrate concrete and actual injury as a result of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s ruling.
Unified Patents initiated an IPR challenging claims in Dolby’s patent and identified itself as the sole real party in interest (RPI). Dolby identified other entities it believed should have been named as RPIs. While the Board determined that the challenged claims were not anticipated and obvious, it refused to adjudicate whether there were other RPIs. The Board explained that there was no evidence that any of the alleged RPIs were estopped from bringing an IPR or that Unified purposely omitted potential RPIs to gain an advantage. Dolby appealed the Board’s refusal to adjudicate the RPI issue, and Unified and the PTAB challenged Dolby’s standing on appeal.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that Dolby lacked Article III standing. The court explained that, to establish Article III standing, an appellant must show an injury in fact, that is, a concrete and actual invasion of a legally protected interest. Dolby argued it had standing because (1) it was a “dissatisfied” party under 35 U.S.C. § 310; (2) its statutory right to information had been violated; and (3) it was injured because RPIs may been breaching license agreements, there may have been conflicts of interest with alleged RPIs, alleged RPIs might not be properly estopped in future proceedings, and Unified might be disincentivized from filing IPRs if it must identify its members as RPIs.
The court rejected Dolby’s arguments. First, the AIA’s “dissatisfied” party provision does not supersede the requirement for Article III standing. Second, even if patent owners have a right to have RPI disputes adjudicated in the context of IPR proceedings, they have no freestanding right to information. Finally, Dolby’s allegations of harm were too hypothetical and speculative to establish an injury in fact. The court therefore dismissed Dolby’s appeal.
Editor: Sean Murray
