Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z

JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Automotive Ltd.

Possible Infringement Risk to Non-Final Product Design Insufficient to Establish Article III Standing Post-IPR

JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Automotive Ltd., __ F.3d __, 2018 WL 3673005 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2018) (Prost, DYK, O’Malley) (PTAB) (3 of 5 stars)

Fed Cir dismisses IPR petitioner JTEKT’s appeal from PTAB decision finding GKN’s claims not unpatentable. Per Consumer Watchdog, 753 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and Phigenix, 845 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2017), JTEKT had the burden to demonstrate some injury resulting from the PTAB’s decision. GKN had not accused JTEKT’s forthcoming product of infringement, and JTEKT itself had indicated that the product’s design was not yet complete. A declaration by JTEKT that the “current concepts” of its design were “similar enough” to GKN’s patent as to merit filing and IPR was insufficient to establish Article III standing to appear before the Federal Circuit. Per Phigenix, the estoppel resulting from JTEKT’s participation in the IPR is not an injury in fact where JTEKT is not engaged in any activity that would give rise to a possible infringement suit.

KEYWORDS: ARTICLE III; STANDING; INTER PARTES REVIEW