Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 1 of 31 PageID 444
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`TAMPA DIVISION
`
`MADSTAD ENGINEERING, INC.,
`a Florida corporation, and
`MARK STADNYK, an individual,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK
`OFFICE, DAVID KAPPOS, in his official
`capacity as Director of U.S. PATENT
`AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, and the
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`Defendants.
`
`No. 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP
`
`DISPOSITIVE MOTION
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`Akamai Ex. 1041
`Akamai Techs. v. Equil IP Holdings
`IPR2023-00330
`Page 00001
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 2 of 31 PageID 445
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................... ii
`
`INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................3
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................................5
`
`ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................7
`
`I. PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE AIA’S FIRST-
`INVENTOR-TO-FILE PROVISIONS. ..........................................................................7
`
`A. The Possible Threat of Invention Theft Is Not a Concrete and Imminent Injury
`Traceable to the AIA’s First-Inventor-To-File Provisions. .....................................8
`
`B. Plaintiffs’ Voluntary Decision to Spend Resources in Anticipation of a Future
`Race to the Patent Office Is Not a Concrete and Imminent Injury Traceable to
`the AIA’s First-Inventor-To-File Provisions. ........................................................12
`
`II. THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS THIS CASE BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS’
`CLAIMS ARE UNRIPE FOR REVIEW. .....................................................................15
`
`III. THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR
`FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. ...............................................................................16
`
`A. Plaintiffs’ Facial Challenge to the AIA’s First-Inventor-To-File Provisions
`Fails Because They Cannot Show That The AIA Will Operate
`Unconstitutionally In Most Cases. .........................................................................17
`
`B. The First-Inventor-To-File Provisions of the AIA Are Constitutional in All
`Cases…. .................................................................................................................18
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`IPR2023-00330 Page 00002
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 3 of 31 PageID 446
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
`
`U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8 ....................................................................................... 1, 5, 18
`CASES
`
`Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co.,
`270 U.S. 390 (1926) ...................................................................................................... 21
`Allen v. Wright,
`468 U.S. 737 (1984) ........................................................................................................ 7
`Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech.,
`543 F.3d 657 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................... 10
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................................ 6
`Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys.,
`131 S. Ct. 2188 (2011) .................................................................................................. 19
`Bedford v. Hunt,
`3 F. Cas. 37 (C.C.D. Mass. 1817) ................................................................................. 24
`Bell Atlantic v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................................................ 6
`Blanchette v. Connecticut Gen. Ins. Corps.,
`419 U.S. 102 (1974) ...................................................................................................... 16
`Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.,
`489 U.S. 141 (1989) ...................................................................................................... 22
`Brunswick Corp. v. United States,
`34 Fed. Cl. 532 (Fed. Cl. 1995) .................................................................................... 24
`Citizens United v. FEC,
`130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) ...................................................................................................... 8
`City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
`461 U.S. 95 (1983) ........................................................................................................ 13
`Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
`674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 10
`Eldred v. Ashcroft,
`537 U.S. 186 (2003) ...................................................................................................... 19
`Evans v. Eaton,
`16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 454 (1818) ...................................................................................... 24
`Figueroa v. United States,
`466 F.3d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................................................................................... 18
`
`- ii -
`
`IPR2023-00330 Page 00003
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 4 of 31 PageID 447
`
`Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc.,
`528 U.S. 167 (2000) ........................................................................................................ 7
`Gayler v. Wilder,
`51 U.S. (10 How.) 477 (1850) ................................................................................ 21, 23
`GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. Georgia,
`687 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 18
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................... passim
`Grant v. Raymond,
`31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 218 (1832) ........................................................................................... 22
`Janklow v. Planned Parenthood, Sioux Falls Clinic,
`517 U.S. 1174 (1996) .................................................................................................... 17
`Kendall v. Winsor,
`62 U.S. (21 How.) 322 (1858) .......................................................................... 21, 22, 23
`Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`745 F.2d 1437 (Fed Cir. 1984) ....................................................................................... 4
`Koziara v. City of Casselberry,
`392 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................... 11
`Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
`504 U.S. 555 (1992) ............................................................................................... passim
`Mason v. Hepburn,
`13 App. D.C. 86 (D.C. Cir. 1898) ................................................................................. 23
`Mayo Collab. Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) .................................................................................................. 10
`McClurg v. Kingsland,
`42 U.S. (1 How.) 202 (1843) .................................................................................. 18, 20
`McConnell v. FEC,
`540 U.S. 93 (2003) .............................................................................................. 8, 12, 14
`Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Fla. State Athletic Comm’n,
`226 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................ 7, 11
`Nat’l Park Hospitality Ass’n v. Dep’t of the Interior,
`538 U.S. 803 (2003) ...................................................................................................... 15
`OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.,
` 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ..................................................................................... 4
`Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club,
`523 U.S. 726 (1998) ...................................................................................................... 16
`Pennock v. Dialogue,
`27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 1 (1829) ......................................................................................... 22, 24
`
`- iii -
`
`IPR2023-00330 Page 00004
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 5 of 31 PageID 448
`
`Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Wycoff Co.,
`344 U.S. 237 (1952) ...................................................................................................... 15
`Renne v. Geary,
`501 U.S. 312 (1991) ........................................................................................................ 6
`Scarfo v. Ginsberg,
`175 F.3d 957 (11th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................................ 6
`Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org.,
`426 U.S. 26 (1976) .......................................................................................................... 7
`Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.,
`464 U.S. 417 (1984) ...................................................................................................... 21
`Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
`523 U.S. 83 (1998) ...................................................................................................... 5, 6
`Texas v. United States,
`523 U.S. 296 (1998) ...................................................................................................... 15
`Toilet Goods Ass’n v. Gardner,
`387 U.S. 158 (1967) ...................................................................................................... 16
`United States v. Salerno,
`481 U.S. 739 (1987) ...................................................................................................... 17
`United States v. Stevens,
`130 S. Ct. 1577 (2010) .................................................................................................. 17
`Warth v. Seldin,
`422 U.S. 490 (1975) ........................................................................................................ 7
`Washburn & Moen Mfg. Co. v. Beat ‘Em All Barbed-Wire Co.,
`143 U.S. 275 (1892) ...................................................................................................... 23
`Whitmore v. Arkansas,
`495 U.S. 149 (1990) .................................................................................................. 7, 11
`Young v. Dworkin,
`489 F.2d 1277 (C.C.P.A. 1974) .................................................................................... 23
` STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 ..................................................................................................... 5
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................................................................................................... passim
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................................... 4, 9, 10, 24
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................................................. 10
`35 U.S.C. § 135 ................................................................................................................... 4
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................. 9, 10
`5 U.S.C. § 702 ..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`- iv -
`
`IPR2023-00330 Page 00005
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 6 of 31 PageID 449
`
`5 U.S.C. § 703 ..................................................................................................................... 5
`FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
`
`Rule 12(b)(1) ....................................................................................................................... 5
`Rule 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................................................... 6
`LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`
`157 Cong. Rec. H4480-01 (daily ed. June 23, 2011) ........................................................ 14
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, (2011).................................................................................... 3
`SECONDARY SOURCES
`
`Donald R. Dunner, First to File: Should Our Interference System Be Abolished?, 68 J.
`Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc’y 561, 561 (1986) ............................................................. 14
`Joe Matal, A Guide To The Legislative History of the America Invents Act (pts. 1 & 2), 21
`Fed. Cir. B.J. 435 (2012) ................................................................................................ 3
`Max Stul Oppenheimer, Harmonization Through Condemnation: Is New London the Key
`to World Patent Harmony?, 40 Vand. J. Trasnat’l L. 445, 466 (2007) ........................ 14
`Press Release, The White House, President Obama Signs America Invents Act,
`Overhauling the Patent System to Stimulate Economic Growth, and Announces New
`Steps to Help Entrepreneurs Create Jobs ........................................................................ 1
`USPTO, Process Production Report: Final Report, FY2011, http://www.uspto.gov/ip/
`boards/bpai/stats/process/fy2011_sep_b.pdf (last visited Sept. 18, 2012) ................... 14
`USPTO, U.S. Patent Statistics Chart: Calendar Years 1963-2011, http://www.uspto.gov/
`web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm (last visited Sept. 18, 2012) ........................... 13
`
`- v -
`
`IPR2023-00330 Page 00006
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 7 of 31 PageID 450
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`
`(2011), represents the most significant patent reform since 1952.1 Among many other
`
`important changes, the AIA establishes a “first-inventor-to-file” patent system, under which
`
`the first person who files a patent application for a given invention, provided he himself
`
`independently invented it, is generally entitled to the patent. See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (restricting
`
`the grant of patents to those who “invent[]”); AIA, sec. 3, §§ 101(i), 102(a), 125 Stat. at 285-
`
`86. Congress moved to a first-inventor-to-file system in order to provide an objective and
`
`easy way to determine a patent’s priority date; reduce the costs of patent disputes through the
`
`use of an objective priority date; and make the U.S. patent system more compatible with
`
`those in other industrialized countries, many of which operate under a first-to-file system.
`
`Plaintiffs seek to overturn the AIA on the grounds that its first-inventor-to-file
`
`provisions violate the Constitution’s Patent Clause. This Clause provides Congress with the
`
`power “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times
`
`to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
`
`U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8. But before this Court can reach the merits of this challenge,
`
`Plaintiffs must establish that there is subject matter jurisdiction, as required by Article III of
`
`the Constitution. Plaintiffs come nowhere close to meeting their burden. First, Plaintiffs
`
`cannot establish standing because they have failed to allege an injury in fact that is concrete,
`
`
`1 See Press Release, The White House, President Obama Signs America Invents Act,
`Overhauling the Patent System to Stimulate Economic Growth, and Announces New Steps to
`Help Entrepreneurs Create Jobs (Sept. 16, 2011), http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
`office/2011/09/16/president-obama-signs-america-invents-act-overhauling-patent-system-stim.
`
`- 1 -
`
`IPR2023-00330 Page 00007
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 8 of 31 PageID 451
`
`particularized, actual, and imminent. Their alleged injuries—the possibility that their
`
`inventions may be stolen in the future and their voluntary decision to spend resources to
`
`ensure they do not lose a future race to the patent office—are entirely speculative and
`
`contingent on events that may never occur. These injuries are also not traceable to the AIA’s
`
`first-inventor-to-file provisions. Plaintiffs therefore lack standing to bring their claims.
`
`Second, because Plaintiffs are attempting to challenge statutory provisions that do not take
`
`effect until March 2013, see AIA, sec. 3(n), 125 Stat at. 293, and because they do not allege
`
`that they face the imminent prospect of losing a race to the patent office to a second
`
`independent inventor, Plaintiffs’ claims are not ripe for adjudication.
`
`But even if Plaintiffs could surmount these jurisdictional barriers, their claims must
`
`be dismissed because they have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As
`
`an initial matter, because Plaintiffs are bringing a facial challenge to the AIA, they have the
`
`heavy burden of showing that the statute will operate unconstitutionally in a large fraction of
`
`cases. They have not and cannot meet that requirement. Plaintiffs’ constitutional claim rests
`
`on the dubious factual assumption that two independent inventors often will create the same
`
`invention and that the second inventor often will file the patent application before the first
`
`inventor. Nothing in their Complaint, however, suggests that these events will occur in a
`
`large fraction of cases, so Plaintiffs’ facial challenge must fail.
`
`Plaintiffs also have failed to state a claim because the AIA is constitutional in all
`
`cases. The AIA restricts the grant of patents to inventors and provides robust protections
`
`against “derivation” (the patenting of a stolen invention). Congress, moreover, has the
`
`authority under the Patent Clause to establish conditions and tests for patentability, and
`
`- 2 -
`
`IPR2023-00330 Page 00008
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 9 of 31 PageID 452
`
`Congress acted well within that authority in establishing the condition that the effective filing
`
`date shall determine priority of invention when two inventors claim the same discovery.
`
`Plaintiffs may disagree as a policy matter with the reforms Congress adopted, but that does
`
`not give rise to a constitutional claim.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`A.
`
`America Invents Act
`
`The AIA was signed into law on September 16, 2011. Several sections went into
`
`effect upon enactment of the law.2 Several others recently went into effect upon the one-year
`
`anniversary of the law, on September 16, 2012.3 The provisions central to Plaintiffs’
`
`challenge, specifically those related to the “first-inventor-to-file” system, will go into effect
`
`on March 16, 2013. AIA, sec. 3(n), 125 Stat. at 293
`
`The change to a first-inventor-to-file regime is designed to achieve several important
`
`aims, including providing an objective and easy way to establish an inventor’s priority date
`
`and reducing the costs of patent disputes by using a definitive patent filing date. See H.R.
`
`Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 40-41 (2011). The change also makes the U.S. patent system more
`
`compatible with the patent systems of other industrialized countries, many of which operate
`
`under a first-to-file system. Id. at 41-42.4
`
`Once the first-inventor-to-file provisions take effect, the filing date of the patent
`
`2 See, for example, AIA secs. 9 (venue), 10 (fee setting authority), 11(fees for patent
`services), 13 (funding agreements), 14 (tax strategies), and 32 (pro bono program).
`3 See, for example, AIA secs. 4 (inventor’s oath or declaration), 7 (establishment of the new
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board), 8 (preissuance submissions by third parties), 12
`(supplemental examination), and 20 (various technical amendments).
`4 For a guide to the legislative history of the AIA, see generally Joe Matal, A Guide To The
`Legislative History of the America Invents Act (pts. 1 & 2), 21 Fed. Cir. B.J. 435 (2012).
`
`- 3 -
`
`IPR2023-00330 Page 00009
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 10 of 31 PageID 453
`
`application will serve as the definitive priority date for any patent. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), as
`
`amended by AIA, sec. 3(b), § 102(a), 125 Stat. at 285-86. But the patent law continues to
`
`awards patents only to “inventors,” as the AIA leaves unchanged section 101 of title 35, U.S.
`
`Code, which provides:
`
`[w]hoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
`composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a
`patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added). Thus, in cases of competing patent claims, disputes will
`
`be resolved based upon which inventor’s patent application has the earlier effective filing
`
`date. Id.; 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), as amended by AIA, sec. 3(b), § 102(a), 125 Stat. at 285-86.
`
`The AIA also provides additional protections to ensure that only inventors are
`
`allowed to secure the right to a patent. In cases where the invention was improperly
`
`derived—i.e., stolen—from an inventor and patented, the AIA provides for “derivation
`
`proceedings,” in which the inventor can establish that the earlier filed patent was invalid and
`
`that the inventor has the right to patent the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. § 135, as amended
`
`by AIA, sec. 3, § 135, 125 Stat. at 289-90. Furthermore, in cases where an invention is stolen
`
`and disclosed to the public, the AIA provides that such disclosure will not be “prior art” that
`
`destroys the patentability of the invention, provided that the inventor files for a patent within
`
`one year of the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as amended by AIA, sec. 3(b), § 102(b), 125
`
`Stat. at 286. 5 The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) currently is in the
`
`
`5 “Prior art” is information that may render a claimed invention unpatentable because it is
`“already available to the public.” OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396,
`1402-03 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d
`1437, 1453 (Fed Cir. 1984) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 102)). Prior art is available to the public, for
`instance, because it has been “described in the world’s accessible literature, including
`
`- 4 -
`
`IPR2023-00330 Page 00010
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 11 of 31 PageID 454
`
`process of issuing regulations to implement the sections of the AIA that have yet to take
`
`effect, including the statute’s first-inventor-to file provisions.6
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Procedural History
`
`Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on July 18, 2012, alleging in a facial challenge that the
`
`AIA’s first-inventor-to-file provisions are unconstitutional under the Patent Clause. See U.S.
`
`Const., art. 1, § 8, cl. 8.7 In addition, Plaintiffs allege that those provisions are not severable
`
`from the remainder of the Act. On July 31, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
`
`injunction (Dkt. 11), seeking to enjoin Defendants from enforcing the AIA against them.
`
`Defendants filed their Opposition (Dkt. 23) on August 30. Plaintiffs filed their Reply (Dkt.
`
`27) on September 14.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for lack of subject matter
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “‘[T]he party
`
`invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.’” Steel Co. v.
`
`Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 104 (1998). “Attacks on subject matter jurisdiction
`
`come in two forms: (1) facial attacks, and (2) factual attacks.” Scarfo v. Ginsberg, 175 F.3d
`
`
`patents, or has been publicly known or in . . . public use or on sale ‘in this country.’” Id. at
`1402.
`6 See, e.g., 77 Fed. Reg. 7028 (Feb. 10, 2012) (proposed rules for derivation proceedings,
`AIA, sec. 3); 77 Fed. Reg. 43,742 (July 26, 2012) (first-inventor-to-file proposed rules, AIA,
`sec. 3).
`7 Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Administrative Procedure
`Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 703, the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, and
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65.
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`IPR2023-00330 Page 00011
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 12 of 31 PageID 455
`
`957, 960 (11th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). A facial attack tests the sufficiency of the
`
`jurisdictional allegations, and those allegations are taken as true for purposes of the motion.
`
`Id. A factual attack challenges “subject matter jurisdiction in fact, irrespective of the
`
`pleadings, and matters outside the pleadings” are considered. Id. (citation omitted). In a
`
`factual attack, no presumption of truthfulness applies to the factual allegations, and the court
`
`is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the
`
`case. Id. at 960-61. This Court must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction
`
`before addressing the merits of the complaint, see Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94-95, and should
`
`“presume that [it] lack[s] jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the
`
`record.” Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 316 (1991) (internal quotation marks and citations
`
`omitted).
`
`Defendants also move to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. As the
`
`Supreme Court recently explained, “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
`
`contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible
`
`on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic v. Twombly,
`
`550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Although the court must accept as true all factual allegations in
`
`the complaint, that tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the
`
`elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`IPR2023-00330 Page 00012
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 13 of 31 PageID 456
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE AIA’S FIRST-
`INVENTOR-TO-FILE PROVISIONS.
`
`To meet their burden to establish standing, Plaintiffs must demonstrate, inter alia,
`
`that they have “suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is
`
`(a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”
`
`Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (quotations omitted). The harm
`
`must be “distinct and palpable,” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 770 (1984) (quoting Warth v.
`
`Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975)), so allegations of possible future injury do not suffice,
`
`Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 158 (1990). Rather, “[a] threatened injury must be
`
`certainly impending to constitute injury in fact.” Id. (quotation omitted). “[A] plaintiff must
`
`present specific, concrete facts showing that the challenged conduct will result in a
`
`demonstrable, particularized injury to the plaintiff.” Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v.
`
`Fla. State Athletic Comm’n, 226 F.3d 1226, 29 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations and quotation
`
`marks omitted). A plaintiff who “alleges only an injury at some indefinite future time” has
`
`not shown injury in fact, particularly where “the acts necessary to make the injury happen are
`
`at least partly within the plaintiff’s own control.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564 n.2.
`
`
`
`Even if Plaintiffs could establish injury in fact, they would also be required to show
`
`that “the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant.” Friends of the
`
`Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000). Traceability
`
`requires that the injuries did not result “from the independent action of some third party not
`
`before the court.” Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 42 (1976). Injuries are
`
`not traceable to the challenged provisions when they consist of voluntary action in
`
`- 7 -
`
`IPR2023-00330 Page 00013
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 14 of 31 PageID 457
`
`anticipation of some future speculative harm. See McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 228
`
`(2003), overruled in part on other grounds, Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010).
`
`
`
`In this case, Plaintiffs’ alleged harms fall into two categories. They first allege that
`
`the AIA has increased the risk that their inventions might be stolen, forcing them to engage
`
`in preventive security measures. See Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 29-34, 41 (Dkt. 1)
`
`(allegations relating to theft). They next allege that the AIA has placed additional financial
`
`burdens on small inventors because they cannot afford to race to the patent office, and will
`
`thus lose out to larger firms. See Compl. ¶¶ 34-41 (allegations relating to racing harms).
`
`These harms are neither concrete nor imminent and therefore do not constitute injury in fact.
`
`They also are not traceable to the first-inventor-to-file provisions. Plaintiffs therefore have
`
`failed to establish standing, and this case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
`
`A. The Possible Threat of Invention Theft Is Not a Concrete and Imminent
`Injury Traceable to the AIA’s First-Inventor-To-File Provisions.
`
`Plaintiffs claim that, under the AIA, they face an increased threat that a thief will steal
`
`one of their inventions and file a patent application on that invention before Plaintiffs do.
`
`See Compl. ¶¶ 29-34. And, because the AIA has allegedly increased the risk of theft,
`
`Plaintiffs claim they must maintain “heightened secrecy” by investing in enhanced computer
`
`security systems and purchasing additional equipment and facilities to develop inventions
`
`“in-house.” See id. Plaintiffs further allege that the threat of theft has led to “reduced access
`
`to potential investors and business partners,” although their Complaint does not allege the
`
`identity of these investors or what business opportunities have been lost. Id. ¶ 41.
`
`On the most fundamental level, Plaintiffs’ theft-based allegations of injury fail to
`
`establish injury in fact because they are premised on an incorrect reading of the AIA. In
`
`- 8 -
`
`IPR2023-00330 Page 00014
`
`

`

`Case 8:12-cv-01589-SDM-MAP Document 29 Filed 09/18/12 Page 15 of 31 PageID 458
`
`Plaintiffs’ view, the AIA makes theft “attractive and profitable for computer hackers,”
`
`Compl. ¶ 30, because the statute “no longer concerns itself with who actually invented an
`
`invention,” id., and makes theft “virtually impossible” to defend against, Compl. ¶ 41.
`
`Because this core contention is flatly wrong, so, too, are Plaintiffs’ claims of standing.
`
`The AIA does not sanction the award of patents to anyone but inventors. Retained
`
`verbatim—unaltered by the AIA—section 101 continues to restrict the grant of patents to
`
`inventors. Section 101 states: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
`
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
`
`thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added); see AIA, passim (no changes to § 101). By retaining
`
`section 101, th