US Inventor, Inc. v. Squires

US Inventor, Inc. v. Squires The Federal Circuit held that the organizational plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not plausibly allege an imminent future injury traceable to the PTO's patent-cover language. The court also held that amendment would be futile and affirmed dismissal. The decision applies the Supreme Court's recent organizational-standing limits to patent-policy challenges, rejecting diversion-of-resources theories based on advocacy or member education. Affirmed. Plaintiffs challenged the PTO's statement on issued patents that the patent grants the right to exclude, arguing that eBay made the language misleading because injunctions are no longer automatic. The court did not decide whether the cover language is accurate; it resolved the appeal on Article III standing. Organizational standing failed because alleged spending on guidance, education, and advocacy was a diversion-of-resources theory foreclosed by FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Fourth Circuit law. Associational standing failed because US Inventor's identified members already knew about eBay and therefore did not face a sufficient likelihood of being misled again; the other groups had not pleaded associational standing. Leave to amend was properly denied because plaintiffs identified no additional facts that would cure the lack of imminent future injury. standing / jurisdiction injunction / stay precedential standing / jurisdiction injunction / stay precedential standing / jurisdiction injunction / stay precedential