"Consumer Watchdog" case cited in Momenta case on standing

Momenta argues that since the purpose of the AmericaInvents Act is to provide an alternative to district court litigation, appeal should be available from the PTAB as itwould be available from a district court decision. Momentastates that the estoppel provision provides injury-in-fact,and that this suffices to support constitutional standing.However, estoppel of Momenta is irrelevant now that Momenta has “exited” its development of the Orencia® product. Estoppel cannot constitute an injury-in-fact whenMomenta “is not engaged in any activity that would giverise to a possible infringement suit.” Consumer Watchdog,753 F.3d at 1262; see also Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S.693, 704 (2013) (the party must be in the position of“seek[ing] a remedy for a personal and tangible harm”);Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1929 (2018) (“the requirement of such a personal stake [in the outcome] ‘ensuresthat courts exercise power that is…

Read more detail on Recent Intellectual Property Law posts –

Related news:

This entry was posted in Intellectual Property and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply