Can the Federal Circuit refuse to hear an appeal by a petitioner from an adverse final decision in a Patent Office inter partes review on the basis of lack of a patent-inflicted injury in fact when Congress has (i) statutorily created the right for parties dissatisfied with a final decision of the Patent Office to appeal to the Federal Circuit, (ii) statutorily created the right to have the Director of the Patent Office cancel patent claims when the petitioner has met its burden to show unpatentability of those claims, and (iii) statutorily created an estoppel prohibiting the petitioner from again challenging the patent claims?

QUESTION PRESENTED The Federal Circuit held that JTEKT Corporation (JTEKT”)—a direct competitor of GKN Automotive Ltd. (“GKN”)—did not have standing to appeal an unfavorable Patent Office inter partes review decision upholding GKN’s patent because JTEKT allegedly did not prove an injury in fact. The Federal Circuit’s action is inconsistent with Congress's actions conferring Article III standing by statute to parties like JTEKT. The question of standing, previously presented and now pending in RPX Corp. v. ChanBond LLC (17-1686) (awaiting input from the Solicitor General), is also applicable here, though presented in different order: Can the Federal Circuit refuse to hear an appeal by a petitioner from an adverse final decision in a Patent Office inter partes review on the basis of lack of a patent-inflicted injury in fact when Congress has (i) statutorily created the right for parties dissatisfied with a final decision of the Patent Office to appeal to the Federal Circuit, (ii) statutorily created the right to have the Director of the Patent Office cancel patent claims when the petitioner has met its burden to show unpatentability of those claims, and (iii) statutorily created an estoppel prohibiting the petitioner from again challenging the patent claims?