A government policy may seem harmful, misleading, or legally questionable. That does not necessarily mean a federal court can decide whether the policy is lawful.
Before a court reaches the merits, the person or organization bringing the case must establish standing, meaning a sufficiently concrete stake in the dispute. A recent Federal Circuit decision illustrates how that threshold requirement can end a lawsuit before the court ever considers whether the challenged government action is actually wrong.
Spending Money to Fight a Policy Is Not Enough
In US Inventor, Inc. v. Squires, several inventor advocacy organizations challenged language the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office places on issued patents.
That language says a patent gives its owner the “right to exclude” others from practicing the patented invention. The organizations argued that the statement could mislead inventors because owning a patent does not guarantee that a court will issue an injunction stopping an infringer.
The organizations said they had spent additional time and resources educating inventors about that distinction. They argued that these expenditures gave them standing to challenge the Patent Office’s practice.
The Federal Circuit disagreed.
Drawing on a 2024 Supreme Court decision, the court explained that an organization generally cannot create the injury needed for federal jurisdiction simply by choosing to spend money opposing, explaining, or responding to a government policy.
That limitation matters well beyond patent law. If advocacy expenses alone were enough, an organization could potentially create standing whenever it disagreed with government action simply by devoting staff time or money to fighting it.
The Injury Must Affect the Organization Itself
There is an important distinction between voluntarily responding to a policy and having the policy directly interfere with an organization’s existing operations.
The inventor groups knew about the legal issue and were not themselves being misled. Their complaint was essentially that other inventors might misunderstand the Patent Office’s language, requiring the organizations to educate them.
That was too indirect.
A stronger claim could arise where government action directly prevents an organization from performing services it already provides or otherwise causes a concrete injury to the organization itself. But spending additional resources to counteract a policy usually will not be enough by itself.
Past Harm May Not Support a Lawsuit Seeking Future Change
US Inventor also tried another route. An organization can sometimes sue on behalf of its members if at least one member would have standing to bring the claim individually.
The organization identified inventors who said they had previously misunderstood what the “right to exclude” meant.
But there was a problem: they now understood the law.
Because the lawsuit sought to change what the Patent Office would do in the future, the organization needed to identify someone facing a real threat of future injury. A person who was confused in the past but is no longer likely to be confused again does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.
The Federal Circuit therefore affirmed dismissal of the case without deciding whether the Patent Office’s language was misleading.
Choose the Plaintiff Before Building the Case
The practical lesson is significant for organizations, companies, trade groups, and others considering litigation intended to change government policy.
The merits of the policy dispute are only part of the analysis. Before investing substantially in the lawsuit, potential plaintiffs should identify exactly who is being injured, how the challenged government action causes that injury, whether the injury is occurring now or is likely to occur again, and whether the relief requested would address it.
Those questions are especially important when the objective is an injunction or another order changing future government conduct.
A compelling policy objection cannot substitute for a plaintiff with the constitutional right to bring the case.
The Patent Question Remains Open
Because the case ended on standing, the Federal Circuit did not decide the underlying dispute over the Patent Office’s “right to exclude” language.
Patent ownership does provide a statutory right to exclude others. But proving infringement does not automatically entitle a patent owner to an injunction stopping the infringer. Courts separately consider whether an injunction is justified under traditional equitable principles.
That distinction can matter when evaluating the practical value of patent rights, but US Inventor v. Squires leaves the Patent Office’s current language intact.
For readers interested in the standing doctrine, relevant precedent, and the unresolved patent issue, the Technology & Information Law Blog provides a more detailed analysis.
About the Author: Charles Gideon Korrell is a technology-transactions attorney and strategic advisor whose practice focuses on technology licensing, commercial transactions, intellectual property strategy, and related matters. More information about his practice is available at GideonKorrell.com. He publishes the Technology & Information Law Blog at TechInfoLaw.com, where he provides more detailed analysis of judicial decisions and legal developments affecting technology and intellectual property.
Discussion