Monday, April 27, 2020

"Consumer Watchdog" case cited in Pfizer v. Chugai

From the case

To establish Article III standing, an appellant must
show that it has “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is
fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant,
and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547
(2016). “That said, where Congress has accorded a procedural right to a litigant,
such as the right to appeal an administrative decision, certain requirements of standing—
namely immediacy and redressability, as well as prudential aspects that are not part of
Article III—may be relaxed.” Consumer Watchdog, 753 F.3d at 1261 (citing
Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 517–18 (2007)). Nonetheless, a “party invoking federal jurisdiction must have ‘a
personal stake in the outcome’” in order to meet the injury
in fact requirement. Consumer Watchdog, 753 F.3d at 1261
(quoting City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101

Pfizer loses

Because Pfizer has failed to establish that it was suffering a cognizable injury at all
stages of these appeals sufficient to give Pfizer Article III standing to seek relief in
this court, we dismiss the appeals.

A party that appeals to this court
from a decision of the Board, however, must have Article
III standing in order for this court to consider the merits of
the appeal. Consumer Watchdog v. Wis. Alumni Research
Found. [WARF], 753 F.3d 1258, 1261 (Fed. Cir. 2014); JTEKT, 898
F.3d at 1219.


Post a Comment

<< Home