Right vs. Remedy: No Standing to Challenge the Patent Cover's "Right to Exclude" Promise

WISECODE Take

On August 21, 2026, the CAFC in US Inventor v. Squires (No. 2024-2378) rejected an inventor group's bid to force the USPTO to amend patent cover language. The plaintiffs argued that after the Supreme Court's 2006 eBay decision, the "right to exclude" text is misleading. This case clarifies that the administrative text on a patent cover does not guarantee a court-ordered injunction. The court dismissed the suit for lack of standing, as the plaintiffs failed to show concrete, imminent future injury. This means the USPTO's cover format will remain unchanged, and the boundary of patent rights continues to be defined by courts, not administrative certificates. This ruling has no substantive impact on most operating Taiwanese businesses, as enforcement strategies already align with litigation realities. If you are concerned about your US patent strength, Zhidian's Patent Portfolio Health Check can help evaluate your likelihood of obtaining an injunction under the eBay framework. I suggest two actions: first, focus on proving "irreparable harm" rather than relying on the certificate's literal "right to exclude"; second, never assume an injunction is automatic when planning US litigation.