The Supreme Court has held that federal courts may only decide actual, ongoing controversies between adverse parties, not issue advisory opinions on hypothetical disputes.
In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Court laid out a three-part test for standing, requiring a concrete, particularized injury that is actual or imminent, traceable to the defendant's actions.
The PTAB's procedures allow losing parties in an inter partes review to appeal final decisions, but Article III's standing requirements introduce additional hurdles for these appeals.
The distinction between concrete and particularized injury was emphasized in Spokeo, where the Court noted that 'concreteness' requires the injury to be 'real,' not merely abstract.
Collection
[
|
...
]