The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent challenger’s attraction in an inter partes assessment (IPR) as a result of the challenger couldn’t meet the injury-in-fact requirement for Article III standing. Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Solutions Inc., Case No. 23-1227 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024) (Moore, Taranto, JJ.; Checchi, Dist. J, sitting by designation).

Viavi Solutions owns a patent directed to optical filters that embrace layers of hydrogenated silicon and to sensor techniques comprising such optical filters. Platinum Optics Technology (PTOT) petitioned for IPR. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board discovered that PTOT had failed to ascertain that the challenged claims had been unpatentable. PTOT appealed.

The Federal Circuit dismissed the attraction, discovering that PTOT didn’t have Article III standing. The Court defined that whereas Article III standing is just not required to look earlier than an administrative company (such because the US Patent & Trademark Office), such standing is required as soon as a celebration seeks judicial assessment in an Article III federal courtroom. PTOT argued it had standing as a result of of potential infringement legal responsibility on account of its continued distribution of a product beforehand accused of infringing the patent and its growth of new fashions of the beforehand accused product. The Court rejected each arguments.

First, PTOT asserted that it suffered an harm in actual fact as a result of there was a probability that Viavi would sue once more. PTOT relied on a letter from Viavi stating that it didn’t consider PTOT might fulfill its provide agreements with noninfringing merchandise. The Federal Circuit disagreed with PTOT’s assertion, concluding that mere hypothesis concerning the risk of go well with, with out extra, is inadequate to confer Article III standing. Moreover, the Court famous that Viavi’s letter was despatched previous to the patent infringement fits, which had been dismissed with prejudice. Thus, the Court discovered that PTOT had not established an harm in actual fact based mostly on potential infringement legal responsibility on account of its continued distribution of a beforehand accused product.

Second, PTOT asserted that it suffered an harm in actual fact based mostly on its growth of new fashions of the beforehand accused product. PTOT’s argument was supported by a declaration from a Deputy Director of Operation Management at PTOT and the identical letter from Viavi threatening future go well with. The Federal Circuit didn’t discover the declaration testimony compelling. It defined that the declaration, which usually alleged that PTOT continued to develop new fashions of the beforehand accused product, didn’t establish any particular concrete plans for PTOT to develop a product that may implicate the patent. The declaration didn’t clarify the particulars of these new fashions or how the fashions would possibly relate to the patent. The Court discovered that the declaration was inadequate to ascertain that PTOT’s growth actions created a considerable danger of infringement or had been more likely to trigger Viavi to claim infringement. The Court famous that the letter from Viavi didn’t particularly tackle fashions in growth or foreclose PTOT’s skill to develop a noninfringing product.

Thus, the Federal Circuit concluded that PTOT failed to ascertain an harm in actual fact ample to confer standing on attraction. The Court dismissed the attraction with out reaching the deserves of the Board’s resolution.

[View source.]