Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/199062360/CW-v-WARF-Appellant-Order-Brief-ECF
Timestamp: 2017-03-28 09:25:14
Document Index: 726272363

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 552', '§ 1295', '§ 141', '§ 311', '§ 315', '§ 319', '§ 329', '§ 141', '§ 1295', '§ 1295', '§ 552', '§ 141', '§ 141', '§ 315', '§ 141', '§ 1295', '§ 141', '§ 1295', '§ 141', '§ 315', '§ 1295', '§ 1295', '§ 1295', '§ 1295', '§ 1295', '§ 311', '§ 319', '§ 141']

BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase: 13-1377 Case: CASE 13-1377 PARTICIPANTS Document: ONLY 34 Document: Page: 1 30 Filed: Page: 11/26/2013 1 Filed: 11/25/20132013-1377 _______________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT _______________ CONSUMER WATCHDOG, (formerly known as The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights), Appellant, v. WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION, Appellee. _______________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Reexamination 95/000,154. _______________ BRIEF OF APPELLANT IN RESPONSE TO ORDER _______________ Daniel B. Ravicher Sabrina Y. Hassan Public Patent Foundation Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 55 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 901 New York, New York 10003 (212) 790-0442 November 25, 2013 Counsel for Appellant
Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22071 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2013).................................8 Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers, Inc., 619 F. 3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................10 Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 882 F.2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1989)........................................................................9 Taitz v. Ruemmler 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119452 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2011)...............................4, 5 United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974)..........................................................................................5 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975).........................................................................................2 STATUTES 5 U.S.C. § 552............................................................................................................4 28 U.S.C. § 1295.............................................................................................. passim 35 U.S.C. § 141.................................................................................................passim 35 U.S.C. § 311........................................................................................................10 35 U.S.C. § 315................................................................................................ passim 35 U.S.C. § 319........................................................................................................10 35 U.S.C. § 329........................................................................................................10 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”).......................................................................................................6, 10 iv
Consumer Watchdog (“CW”) submits this brief in response to the Court's Order of November 14, 2013, directing the parties to “submit a brief on the issue of whether Consumer Watchdog has standing to pursue this appeal.” Dkt. 29. In its opening brief, CW stated, “This Court therefore has jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 141 and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).” Opening Brief of Appellant, 1, Dkt. 12 (July 2, 2013). Sections 141 and 315 of the Patent Act expressly give third party requesters of inter partes reexamination, such as CW here, the right to appeal to the Court any decision of the Board with which they are dissatisfied. The statutes therefore create a procedural right in such requesters that also provides them the standing to do so. CW thus has standing to pursue this appeal. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1295, the Court has jurisdiction. I. STATUTES GIVING THIRD-PARTY INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION REQUESTERS THE PROCEDURAL RIGHT TO APPEAL ADVERSE PTO DECISIONS ALSO PROVIDE THEM STANDING TO DO SO Standing is a component of judicial jurisdiction that is meant to maintain a separation of powers within our government. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-60 (1992). When Congress and the President pass express statutes giving the courts power to resolve certain disputes, separation of powers has been respected and the courts should therefore hear such cases. Here, not one, but two express statutes give CW the right to appeal to the Court. They also provide CW standing to do so.
While the “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing is injury-in-fact, a causal connection between the complained-of conduct and the injury, and likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61, “Congress may enact statutes creating legal rights, the invasion of which creates standing, even though no injury would exist without the statute,” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 n. 3 (1973). Indeed, “Congress may create a statutory right or entitlement the alleged deprivation of which can confer standing to sue even where the plaintiff would have suffered no judicially cognizable injury in the absence of statute.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 514 (1975); see Lujan, 504 U.S. at 578. In Lujan the Supreme Court expressly recognized that Congress is empowered to create standing through procedural rights. The Eighth Circuit ruling below Lujan had found standing for the plaintiffs who brought suit pursuant to a statute that provided “any person may commence a civil suit” to enjoin a party who allegedly violated the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Its decision rested in part on the theory that the plaintiffs had suffered a “procedural injury.” Justice Scalia supported that theory in the Lujan majority opinion, “There is [] much truth to the assertion that 'procedural rights' are special: the person who has been accorded a procedural right to protect his concrete interests can assert that right without meeting all the normal standards for redressability
and immediacy.” Lujan, 504 U.S. 572, n.7. As further explained by Justice Scalia, the necessary “concrete interest” query looks to whether the party seeking standing is the subject of the challenged government action, or merely just one of hundreds of millions of Americans that could bring such a claim. Id. at 561-62 (“When the suit is one challenging the legality of government action or inaction, the nature and extent of facts that must be averred (at the summary judgment stage) or proved (at the trial stage) in order to establish standing depends considerably upon whether the plaintiff is himself an object of the action (or forgone action) at issue.”) Thus, the Lujan plaintiff's use of a statute that provided “any person” could bring a suit was not in itself sufficient to provide concreteness for standing. The person would need to be “an object of the action.” Id. at 573. In concurrence, Justice Kennedy expanded upon the idea that Congress can create standing through legislation, “Congress has the power to define injuries and articulate chains of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none existed before, and I do not read the Court's opinion to suggest a contrary view.” Id. at 580. Justice Kennedy's statement that Congress could “define” an injury sufficient for standing with mere law acknowledges Congress and the President can agree as to what satisfies the “irreducible minimum” necessary for judicial standing. Thus, while statutes may create a procedural right, and not an injury-in-fact, the
procedural right created by a statute can confer standing for the underlying legal action even where there would otherwise be no standing. Two examples illustrate the point. First, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) confers jurisdiction upon courts to hear cases brought by parties who request documents from government agencies and are dissatisfied with the agency's response. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). The Supreme Court has described FOIA as a “judicially enforceable public right” ( EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 80 (1973)) and made clear that no injury is required of a person who seeks to enforce that right. NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 221 (1978). Thus, in Taitz v. Ruemmler a curious citizen who wished to prove that President Obama was not a natural-born American citizen had standing to challenge the denial of her FOIA request for the President's long-form birth certificate even though there was no injury-in-fact. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119452 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2011). This holding contrasts with a nonFOIA attempt to obtain the same information in Berg v. Obama, where a voter wished to prevent then-candidate Barack Obama from running for President, alleging that Obama was not a natural born citizen as the Constitution required. 574 F. Supp. 2d 509, 512 (E.D. Pa. 2008), aff'd, 586 F.3d 234 (3d Cir. 2009). Among the relief Berg sought was an order compelling defendants to produce a copy of Obama's long form birth certificate. Id. at 514. The plaintiff lacked standing to bring a challenge under the Natural Born Citizen Clause even though his desire for Obama's birth certificate was precisely the
statute providing a right to seek judicial review of an agency decision that provided standing. 524 U.S. at 22 (“Here, there is no constitutional provision requiring the demonstration of the 'nexus' the Court believed must be shown in Richardson[]. Rather, there is a statute . . ..”). Thus, the existence of a statute providing the right to seek Court review of an administrative agency's decision provides standing to do so. B. Two Statutes Expressly Give CW A Procedural Right To Appeal
The first statute applicable here is 35 U.S.C. § 141. While that statute was recently amended, those amendments do not apply to this matter. Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), Sec. 7(e)(2). The version of § 141 applicable to this case is the pre-AIA version, which stated in relevant part: A . . . third-party requester in an inter partes reexamination proceeding, who is in any reexamination proceeding dissatisfied with the final decision in an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences under section 134 may appeal the decision only to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The second statute applicable here is 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)(1), which similarly provided prior to the AIA: A third-party requester may appeal under the provisions of section 134, and may appeal under the provisions of sections 141 through 144, with respect to any final decision favorable to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or new claim of the patent. The pre-AIA version of Section 315 applies to this matter. AIA, Sec. 6(c)(3)(C). Thus, the Patent Act expressly provides third party requesters of inter partes 6
reexamination, such as CW here, the right to seek appeal of any final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (formerly known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences) with which they are dissatisfied to the Court. This comports with the entire purpose behind inter partes reexamination, as opposed to ex parte reexamination, which was to ensure the right of third party requesters to participate throughout all stages of the proceeding, including any and all appeals to the Court. Congress purposefully and knowingly created inter partes reexamination as a mechanism by which third parties could challenge the validity of patents at the PTO and appeal any decision of the PTO with which they were “dissatisfied” to the Court. 35 U.S.C. § 141 (applicable version). This combination of the substantive entitlement to an administrative determination and provisions creating subject matter jurisdiction for an appeal to the Court provides CW standing to do so, just as the statute in Akins did. Further, the statute the Court has expressly cited for providing it jurisdiction to hear third party requester appeals of inter partes reexamination decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A), states in relevant part: The . . . Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction—of an appeal from a decision of—the Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . with respect to a patent . . . reexamination . . . at the instance of a party who exercised that party's right to participate in the applicable proceeding before or appeal to the Board . . .. This statute again expressly states the right of appeal for “a party” who participated in
the proceeding before the Board in the underlying reexamination, as CW did here. Therefore, because express statutes give CW the right to bring this appeal (35 U.S.C. §§ 141 and 315) and the Court jurisdiction to hear the appeal (28 U.S.C. § 1295), CW has standing. Concreteness exists because CW is the direct object of the Board's decision that is the subject of this appeal. No third party except CW could appeal to the Court the Board's decision in this inter partes reexamination. Unlike the statute used by the plaintiffs in Lujan, the relevant statutes here do not say “any party” may appeal a PTO decision in an inter partes reexamination with which they are dissatisfied. Only the “patent owner or third party requester” may do so under 35 U.S.C. § 141, only the “third party requester” may do so under 35 U.S.C. § 315, and the Court only has jurisdiction to hear an appeal by “a party who exercised that party's right to participate in the applicable proceeding before the Board” under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). Indeed, the Court has repeatedly held, as recently as last month, that it has jurisdiction in cases just like the instant one, in which a third-party requester appeals an adverse PTO decision in an inter partes reexamination. Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22071, at 10 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2013) (“This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).”); C.W. Zumbiel Co. v. Kappos, 702 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We have jurisdiction pursuant to § 1295(a)(4)(A).”); PlaSmart, Inc. v. Kappos, 482 Fed. Appx. 568, 572 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We have jurisdiction pursuant to § 1295(a)(4
)(A).”); Fluor Tec, Corp. v. Kappos, 499 Fed. Appx. 35, 40 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We have jurisdiction pursuant to § 1295(a)(4)(A).”). Quite correctly, the Court has never questioned the standing of third party inter partes reexamination requester appellants.1 Lastly, as is evident from the discussion above, CW's standing to appeal the Board's decision here is not the same standing required to bring suit directly against WARF to challenge the patent's validity, because those two requirements entail vastly different considerations. CW need not argue it has standing to bring a declaratory judgment action against WARF directly, because such standing is not required for this appeal. The reason that standing is different between the two procedural postures is the presence of the statutory scheme for inter partes reexamination that confers a concrete
1 Before the creation of inter partes reexaminations, the Court faced a similar standing question of whether third party requesters of ex parte reexamination had standing to appeal the Board's ultimate decision in the ex parte reexamination. The Court held such requesters did not have standing precisely because no statute conferred a right for third parties to participate in any appeal of the reexamination decision of the PTO to the courts. Boeing Co. v. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks, 853 F.2d 878, 881-82 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (finding third-party requester of an ex parte reexamination lacked standing due to the fact that the requester “was not entitled by statute to seek judicial review of the reexamination because that procedural route is available under [the relevant statutes] only to applicants and patent owners . . ..”) (emphasis added); Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 882 F.2d 1570, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (saying with respect to a third-party ex parte reexamination requester's standing, “[t]he question of jurisdiction (subject matter or standing) requires a focus on the legal rights or interests which devolve from the relevant statute.”). After the Court stated that a statute granting jurisdiction was exactly what requesters needed for standing to challenge reexamination decisions, Congress created inter partes reexaminations and the corresponding right to appeal to the Court decisions of the Board in such proceedings, as CW has done here. 9
and particularized legal right to file an inter partes reexamination upon “any third party requester” and then provides any such “third party requester” the right to appeal an adverse determination to the Court. 35 U.S.C. §§ 311(a), 315, and 141 (the pre-AIA versions applicable here). A declaratory judgment action, because it takes place outside of a concrete and particularized statutory scheme, requires a different basis for standing.
For these reasons, CW has standing to pursue this appeal.2 Dated: November 25, 2013 /s/ Daniel B. Ravicher Daniel B. Ravicher Sabrina Y. Hassan Public Patent Foundation Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 55 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 901 New York, New York 10003 (212) 790-0442 Counsel for Appellant 2 If the Court is not convinced that CW has standing to pursue this appeal despite the two statutes providing it that right, the Court may wish to invite the United States to opine on the issue, as a decision that CW does not have standing here could raise a Constitutional question regarding those two statutes. Stauffer v. Brooks Brothers, Inc., 619 F. 3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (addressing Constitutional standing challenge to plaintiff who brought qui tam action expressly provided for by Patent Act). Further, a decision questioning CW's standing here could also raise Constitutionality issues for other statutes not directly involved, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 319 and 329 and the current version of 35 U.S.C. § 141, which give rights of appeal to the Court to third party requesters of the new inter partes review and post grant review processes created by the AIA. In addition, due to the potential far reaching effects of a decision limiting standing of third parties to appeal decisions of the PTO, amici may wish to submit briefs to the Court on the issue and should perhaps be provided an opportunity to do so. 10
More From This UserSkip carouselPRKRvQCOM_CAFC20140915_AppellantBriefPetition 1Prkr v Qcom - Rjmol Noninfringement Prkr OppCELG v ACT - Markman Opinion (May 27, 2014)CELG v ACT - Markman Order (May 27, 2014)Vrng v Goog - Cafc - Notice Supp Auth (May 22, 2014)CELG v ACT - Complaint Filed May 15, 2014CELG v ACT - CELG Response Markman BriefCELG v ACT - Joint Markman StatementCELG v ACT - CELG Opening Markman BriefCELG v ACT - ACT Response Markman BriefCELG v ACT - ACT Opening Markman BriefCELG v ACT - 20140507 - Infringement StipEW v MDT - Physician Certification FormCW v WARF - Order of Dec 4 2013CW v WARF - Appellant Brief (ECF)CW v WARF - Appellee Brief (ECF)Cw v Warf - Reply Brief (Ecf)CW v WARF - Appellee Order Brief (ECF)CW v WARF - Order of Nov 14 2013AVNR - 20131218 - Letter From Par Re Expiration of Stay12-1274.Order.5-3-2013.1Vringo v MS 20130328 Endorsed LetterRavicherTOJPMREHerbalife.pdf
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulCW v WARF - Appellant Order Brief (ECF) by Daniel Ravicher0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionCW v WARF - Appellant Order Brief (ECF)CW v WARF - Appellant Order Brief (ECF)Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
Related1313by sabatino123Datatreasury Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al - Document No. 413by Justia.comCFR 37by jam headOposa v. Factoranby Francis Xavier SinonAid for Women v. Foulston, 441 F.3d 1101, 10th Cir. (2006)by Scribd Government DocsKwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct.by www.BaileyDaily.comgr no. 171396by Kirk Roberts ReborosoKilosbayan vs Moratoby Romielyn MacalinaoUnited States v. Watts, 4th Cir. (2007)by Scribd Government DocsRobert Walter Govern v. Edwin Meese, Attorney General of the United States, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, and Congress Financial Corporation (Florida), 811 F.2d 1405, 11th Cir. (1987)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Raymond Chestnut, 4th Cir. (2015)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Cestnik, 10th Cir. (2001)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Angelo Galloway, 4th Cir. (2013)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Curry, 47 U.S. 106 (1848)by Scribd Government DocsUsman Ahzaz Appeal Rulingby Julia O'dwyerUnited States v. Cooper, 89 F.3d 851, 10th Cir. (1996)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Ballieu, 10th Cir. (2012)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. McQueen, 4th Cir. (2007)by Scribd Government DocsJerome Pelmer, A/K/A Jerry Jones v. J.D. White, Warden, and Don Siegelman, the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, 877 F.2d 1518, 11th Cir. (1989)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Jimmy Bruce Rowan, 663 F.2d 1034, 11th Cir. (1981)by Scribd Government DocsGonzales v. Ledezma, 10th Cir. (2011)by Scribd Government DocsTara C. Galabya v. New York City Board of Education, 202 F.3d 636, 2d Cir. (2000)by Scribd Government DocsBALDWIN v SEBELIUS, et al. (Healthcare) - 37 - Order Granting Motion to Dismiss - 37 - Casd-03704832896by Jack RyanUnited States v. Lam Muk Chiu, 522 F.2d 330, 2d Cir. (1975)by Scribd Government DocsGeorge Preble v. J. B. Johnson, George Preble v. Tom J. Goins, George Preble v. Claude A. Puckett, George Preble v. Ray Taylor, George Preble v. William H. Juergens, George Preble v. L. W. Parrish, George Preble v. G. E. Horne, 275 F.2d 275, 10th Cir. (1960)by Scribd Government DocsRaymond Bobby Boone v. State of North Carolina, 896 F.2d 545, 4th Cir. (1990)by Scribd Government DocsIngalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 519 U.S. 248 (1997)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Coleman, 10th Cir. (1997)by Scribd Government DocsSimilar To CW v WARF - Appellant Order Brief (ECF)Skip carousel1313Datatreasury Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al - Document No. 413CFR 37Oposa v. FactoranAid for Women v. Foulston, 441 F.3d 1101, 10th Cir. (2006)Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct.gr no. 171396Kilosbayan vs MoratoUnited States v. Watts, 4th Cir. (2007)Robert Walter Govern v. Edwin Meese, Attorney General of the United States, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, and Congress Financial Corporation (Florida), 811 F.2d 1405, 11th Cir. (1987)United States v. Raymond Chestnut, 4th Cir. (2015)United States v. Cestnik, 10th Cir. (2001)United States v. Angelo Galloway, 4th Cir. (2013)United States v. Curry, 47 U.S. 106 (1848)Usman Ahzaz Appeal RulingUnited States v. Cooper, 89 F.3d 851, 10th Cir. (1996)United States v. Ballieu, 10th Cir. (2012)United States v. McQueen, 4th Cir. (2007)Jerome Pelmer, A/K/A Jerry Jones v. J.D. White, Warden, and Don Siegelman, the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, 877 F.2d 1518, 11th Cir. (1989)United States v. Jimmy Bruce Rowan, 663 F.2d 1034, 11th Cir. (1981)Gonzales v. Ledezma, 10th Cir. (2011)Tara C. Galabya v. New York City Board of Education, 202 F.3d 636, 2d Cir. (2000)BALDWIN v SEBELIUS, et al. (Healthcare) - 37 - Order Granting Motion to Dismiss - 37 - Casd-03704832896United States v. Lam Muk Chiu, 522 F.2d 330, 2d Cir. (1975)George Preble v. J. B. Johnson, George Preble v. Tom J. Goins, George Preble v. Claude A. Puckett, George Preble v. Ray Taylor, George Preble v. William H. Juergens, George Preble v. L. W. Parrish, George Preble v. G. E. Horne, 275 F.2d 275, 10th Cir. (1960)Raymond Bobby Boone v. State of North Carolina, 896 F.2d 545, 4th Cir. (1990)Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 519 U.S. 248 (1997)United States v. Coleman, 10th Cir. (1997)United States v. Rios-Madrigal, 10th Cir. (2007)John Marchezak, G. Richard Moose v. Myron R. McKinley Market Administrator of Federal Order No. 36 and Referendum Agent, and Robert Bergland, United States Secretary of Agriculture, in Nos. 78-2652 and 79-1090. John Marchezak v. Milk Marketing, Incorporated, an Agricultural Cooperative Corporation, Appellant-Intervenor in Nos. 78-2387 and 79-1094, 607 F.2d 37, 3rd Cir. (1979)CW v WARF - Appellant Order Brief (ECF)