In its ruling, the CAFC stated that 'to establish a case or controversy, the appellant must meet the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing' which includes demonstrating an injury that is concrete and particularized.
The CAFC highlighted PTOT’s failure to substantiate its claims, asserting that 'PTOT's unsubstantiated speculation about a threat of future suit is insufficient to show a substantial risk of future infringement.'
Judge Cecchi emphasized that establishing an injury in fact involves proving that the alleged harm is 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical,' thus solidifying the standards for standing in patent appeals.
The court's dismissal underscored the necessity for claimants to provide solid evidence rather than mere speculation, underscoring the stringent standards for standing required in appellate courts.
Collection
[
|
...
]