On May 8, 2013, a federal judge in Florida dismissed a constitutional challenge to the AIA’s first‑inventor-to-file system, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit. In dismissing the case, the judge ruled that plaintiff MadStad Engineering and its owner had not established a “certainly impending” injury.
MadStad argued it had standing based on four asserted injuries. First, due to the first-inventor-to-file system, it expended additional money to maintain heightened computer-security measures to protect its data concerning potential inventions from being hacked by intellectual-property thieves. Second, the first‑inventor-to-file system caused it to acquire and maintain additional equipment for in-house product development and testing so that it could avoid sending unpatented intellectual property to outside vendors. Third, the first-inventor-to-file system caused it to spend more time and incur higher costs to file additional patent applications to protect its ideas. And, fourth, it lost business and investment opportunities because the first‑inventor‑to‑file system deters inventors from sharing ideas with potential partners and investors.