IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Inventor advocacy groups lacked standing to challenge USPTO’s patent cover language, (Aug 21, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The inventor advocacy groups failed to allege an imminent future injury from the USPTO’s continued representation that patents confer a “right to exclude.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) lawsuit challenging language the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) places on issued patents, holding that three inventor advocacy groups lacked Article III standing to seek declaratory or injunctive relief. The court found no organizational standing because resources voluntarily spent addressing the allegedly misleading language did not constitute cognizable injury and no associational standing because the groups failed to identify members facing an imminent threat of future harm. It also affirmed the denial of leave to amend because amendment would have been futile (U.S. Inventor, Inc. v. Squires, No. 24-2378 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2026)).

Dispute. US Inventor, Inc. is a nonprofit organization that advocates for and educates independent inventors, small businesses, and startups on patent matters. The Inventor’s Association of South Central Kansas supports and educates inventors in developing and protecting inventions, while Inventors Network of Minnesota assists early-stage product developers and inventors in bringing ideas to market. The defendants were the USPTO and its director, who administer the federal patent system and oversee the issuance of U.S. patents.

The Patent Act provides that a patent grants its holder the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention in the United States or importing it into the country. Tracking 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(1), the USPTO places substantially the same language on the cover of each newly issued patent. The advocacy groups contended that this statement had become misleading after the Supreme Court eliminated the Federal Circuit’s former general rule favoring permanent injunctions against patent infringers.

The groups maintained that eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), effectively eliminated an absolute right to exclude because patent owners seeking permanent injunctions must satisfy the traditional four-factor equitable test. They therefore sued the USPTO and its director under the APA, alleging that the agency unlawfully withheld or delayed rulemaking, acted arbitrarily and capriciously by continuing to use the language, and exceeded its statutory authority. They sought an order requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking, an injunction against representations of an unequivocal right to exclude, and a declaration that the existing language was unlawful. The Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the complaint for lack of standing and denied leave to amend as futile. The advocacy groups appealed.

Organizational standing. The Federal Circuit held that the groups failed to establish standing in their own right. They alleged that the USPTO’s language forced them to spend additional time and resources educating members about the practical limitations on patent owners’ ability to obtain injunctions.

The court found that theory foreclosed by FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024). There, the Supreme Court explained that an organization cannot “spend its way into standing” merely by devoting resources to gathering information or advocating against government action.

The groups’ allegations fit that prohibited theory. Their asserted injuries consisted of spending resources to develop guidance, educate members, and respond to the USPTO’s allegedly misleading representations. Those expenditures did not demonstrate that the challenged conduct directly interfered with the organizations’ core activities. The court distinguished Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982), where discriminatory practices directly impaired a housing organization’s counseling and referral services. Here, the advocacy groups already understood the effect of eBay and alleged only that unidentified inventors might be misled, requiring the organizations to expend resources correcting their understanding.

Associational standing. The groups also failed to establish standing through their members. Under Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977), an association may sue on behalf of members when, among other requirements, at least one member would independently have standing.

US Inventor submitted declarations from three inventor-members who said the patent-cover language had previously led them to believe they possessed a guaranteed right to exclude infringers through injunctive relief. But each declarant acknowledged subsequently learning that eBay made injunctive relief dependent on an equitable four-factor test.

Because those members now understood the law, the court found no sufficient likelihood that the USPTO’s language would mislead them again. Their past exposure to the allegedly misleading representation could not establish the real and immediate threat of future injury necessary for prospective relief. The other two organizations had not pleaded associational standing or identified injured members.

Amendment. Finally, the Federal Circuit upheld the refusal to permit amendment. The groups proposed clarifying that the associational-standing theory also applied to the two organizations that had not initially asserted it. But that amendment would not cure the fundamental defect: none had identified members plausibly facing imminent future injury. The district court therefore acted within its discretion in finding amendment futile.

Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal of the action for lack of Article III standing without reaching the merits of whether the USPTO’s patent-cover language accurately describes patent owners’ rights after eBay.

The Case is No. 24-2378.

Judge: Kovner, R.

Attorneys: Steven R. Daniels (Prince Lobel Tye LLP) for the U.S. Inventor, Inc. Weili J. Shaw, U.S. Department of Justice, for John A. Squires.

Companies: U.S. Inventor, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Patent FedCirNews GCNNews