Dolby Laboratories v. Unified Patents: IPR Real-Party-in-Interest Disclosure and Article III Standing

Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation has petitioned for certiorari seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s June 5, 2025 decision dismissing Dolby’s appeal from a favorable PTAB final written decision on the ground that a prevailing patent owner lacked Article III standing to contest the Board’s refusal to adjudicate a real-party-in-interest (RPI) dispute. The case raises foundational questions about the accountability structures Congress built into the inter partes review regime and about the scope of Article III standing doctrine in administrative patent proceedings.

Unified Patents—a membership-based organization that files IPR petitions on behalf of subscribing technology companies—petitioned for inter partes review of Dolby’s U.S. Patent No. 10,237,577, directed to a video-decoding prediction method, identifying itself as the sole RPI. Dolby identified nine additional Unified member companies it argued should have been named as RPIs. The PTAB declined to adjudicate the dispute under its then-precedential SharkNinja framework—subsequently de-designated by USPTO Director John Squires in September 2025—and issued a final written decision finding Dolby’s claims not unpatentable. Dolby appealed, not to challenge the favorable patentability outcome, but to seek review of the Board’s refusal to enforce the RPI disclosure mandate of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).

The Federal Circuit, in an opinion by Chief Judge Moore, dismissed for want of an injury in fact. The panel held that Section 312(a)(2)’s requirement that a petition “identify all real parties in interest” does not create a freestanding informational right cognizable under Article III, distinguishing statutes like the Federal Election Campaign Act that expressly purpose public access to information. The petition, filed by lead counsel Kayvan B. Noroozi of Noroozi PC, argues that the Federal Circuit improperly narrowed standing doctrine and that Dolby’s concrete interest in knowing who controls the IPR opposition it faces—and in preserving downstream estoppel rights under 35 U.S.C. § 315—constitutes a cognizable injury. Respondent Unified Patents is represented by Angela M. Oliver of Haynes and Boone, LLP.

The case carries significance beyond Dolby’s particular patent. Unified Patents’ subscription model, under which member companies fund IPR challenges without formal participation, depends in part on confidentiality about membership. A ruling that patent owners have standing to compel RPI adjudication would alter post-IPR estoppel exposure for undisclosed Unified members in subsequent district court litigation. The Director’s September 2025 de-designation of SharkNinja has already shifted PTAB practice on RPI disputes, potentially providing an alternative ground for relief even if the Court does not grant review. The Court’s continuing engagement with AIA procedure is evident in the companion patent case Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., No. 24-889, already granted this Term.

No response deadline has been set; the petition is pending.