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.
- Dolby provided no evidence of conflicts of interest between the Board’s administrative patent judges and the alleged RPIs, nor any resulting harm.
- Dolby could not demonstrate concrete harm from the Board’s refusal to adjudicate the RPI issue, as no litigation or estoppel-triggering event was pending.
- Dolby’s claim that Unified might alter its litigation strategy if required to disclose its members was deemed speculative and insufficient to establish injury in fact.
Practice Note: Article III standing is a strict gatekeeper in appeals from the Board, notwithstanding the right of appeal granted by the AIA. Dissatisfaction with a Board decision or speculation regarding potential harm as a sequelae from the decision is insufficient to establish actual injury in fact.