Two cases being argued at the Federal Circuit in April attracted amicus briefs. One of these cases is A.L.M. Holding Co. v. Zydex Industries Private Ltd, a patent case. In it, A.L.M. Holding appeals a district court’s conclusion that it lacked Article III standing. This is our argument preview.
In their opening brief, the plaintiffs-appellants argue that, as “the undisputed owners of the patent-in-suit,” they suffered an “injury in fact” and therefore have standing. In this regard, they note that “monetary harm suffices” to establish standing. They assert the Federal Circuit “leaves open two approaches” to establishing standing. Under what they call the “broad approach,” they argue “exclusionary rights are sufficient but not necessary for a patent owner to have” standing, but contend monetary harm is enough “regardless of exclusionary rights.” Under what they call the “narrow approach,” “‘at least one exclusionary right’ is necessary” for standing. The plaintiffs-appellants allege they have standing under either approach.
In their response brief, the defendants-appellees argue the “Plaintiffs have not satisfied (and cannot satisfy)” their burden of showing that “they possess at least one exclusionary right to the patent-in-suit.” They assert that an agreement “transferred all exclusionary rights to the patents-in-suit from Plaintiffs” to a non-party named Ingevity. Even though the plaintiffs-appellants “identify six rights that they purportedly retained” under the relevant agreement, the defendants-appellees suggest “no court has ever found that any” of those rights “are exclusionary.” They argue “an entity that exclusively licensed its patents to an unrelated third-party” does not have Article III standing. Only the “unrelated third-party who then possessed the sole right to grant sublicenses under those patents—and the sole right to settle litigation relating to those patents by granting a license”—has standing, they contend. The defendants-appellees suggest the Federal Circuit refuse “a wholsesale reconsideration of its standing jurisprudence.” They say “exclusionary rights are the touchstone of the Article III inquiry in patent cases, and they should remain so.”
In their reply brief, the plaintiffs-appellants argue that “no other case is as legally or factually relevant” than a case that was decided last year. They argue that, under that case, the court should apply the broader interpretation of Article III standing they outlined in their opening brief “and conclude that Plaintiffs have Article III standing because Defendants’ unauthorized practice of the patents caused Plaintiffs monetary harm.” However, they argue, even under the narrow interpretation they outlined in their opening brief, “the Plaintiffs, as the patent owners, hold all exclusionary rights ‘unless’ they have transferred ‘all’ of them away.” They say they “still retained ‘at least one exclusionary right’” and that this is evidenced in the implementation and enforcement conditions outlined in the relevant agreement. Finally, they argue, the defendants-appellees’ interpretation and treatment of the caselaw is “unpersuasive,” and so the court “should reverse the judgment below.”
The case attracted an amicus brief by Glycosyn LLC in support of the plaintiffs and reversal.
Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 201.