1. Insights
  2. Blogs
  3. IP Newsflash

Post­-Complaint Events or Transactions Cannot Cure Prudential Standing Defects

Jan 26, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

By: Rachel J. Elsby

Alps South countered that it had prudential standing because the license agreement was amended after the complaint was filed, which retroactively granted Alps South all substantial rights effective as of the date of the original license agreement. Alps South also argued that the complaint was amended to reflect this amended license agreement, which cured Alps South’s prudential standing defect existed at the time the complaint was filed.

The Federal Circuit rejected Alps South’s arguments, holding that a jurisdictional defect that existed at the time the complaint was filed cannot be cured by post­filing activities or retroactive license agreements. It also held that a supplemental complaint does not become the operative complaint for determining jurisdictional and standing issues.

Alps South then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the Federal Circuit’s holdings, but the Supreme Court denied it without explanation, leaving the Federal Circuit’s holdings intact.

Alps South, LLC v. The Ohio Willow Wood Company, No. 15­567 (U.S. Supreme Court, Jan. 19, 2016).

Share This Insight

Categories

SCOTUS

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors,
valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information
to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely
commercial....

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does
not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the
invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B)....

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 21, 2025

Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The
Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. unanimously construed “defendant’s profits” in 35 USC § 1117(a) to mean that only the
named defendant’s profits can be awarded, not the profits of other related corporate entities. The Court, however, left open the possibility that other
language in § 1117(a) may allow for damages linked to the profits of related entities, if properly raised and supported....

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 13, 2025

In a series of rulings on a motion in limine, the District of Delaware recently distinguished between what qualifies as being incorporated by reference and
what does not for the purposes of an anticipation defense. In short, a parenthetical citation was held to be insufficient, while three passages discussing a cited
reference met the test....

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 4, 2025

On February 28, 2025, the USPTO announced that it was rescinding former Director Vidal’s 2022 memorandum on discretionary denials by the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board. The 2022 memorandum effectively narrowed the application of discretionary denials in cases with parallel district court litigation by
specifying instances where discretionary denial could not be issued. With the withdrawal of the memorandum, individual PTAB panels will regain flexibility in
weighing discretionary denials. While the long-term effect of that increased flexibility is not yet known, the immediate effect is likely to be a shift towards the
discretionary analysis applied by PTAB panels before the issuance of the memorandum....

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 3, 2025

A District of Delaware judge recently granted a defendant’s motion to include a patent prosecution bar in its proposed protective order after determining that
litigation counsel’s ability to practice before the Patent Office—without ever having represented the plaintiffs at the Patent Office in the past—weighed heavily
in favor of the bar....

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 12, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court decision that found a patent that did not describe after-arising technology failed to satisfy the written
description requirement. In so doing, the Federal Circuit explained that written description and enablement are evaluated based on the subject matter that is
claimed, not the products that practice those claims. As a result, the patentee was not required to describe unclaimed, later-discovered features of the
accused products despite the broad language in the claims that undisputedly covered the products....

Read More

IP Newsflash

January 24, 2025

The District of Delaware recently rejected a patentee’s argument that non-production of an opinion letter from counsel, combined with knowledge of the
patent, warranted a finding that defendant induced infringement....

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.