In ironSource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine, Inc., No. 2024-1831 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2026), the Federal Circuit dismissed ironSource’s appeal from a post‑grant review (PGR) decision for lack of Article III standing.
ironSource petitioned for PGR of Digital Turbine’s patent, which relates to downloading and installing mobile device applications in the background instead of directing a user to an application store, asserting unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103. The PTAB instituted review, and Digital Turbine moved to amend the claims. After the PTAB found ironSource’s initial proposed amended claims unpatentable, Digital Turbine filed a revised motion to amend, which the Board granted, concluding that ironSource failed to show that the substitute claims were unpatentable or patent ineligible. ironSource appealed, and Digital Turbine challenged ironSource’s standing.
Applying established precedent regarding standing to appeal a decision from a post-grant proceeding, the Federal Circuit held that ironSource failed to establish an “actual or imminent” injury, rather than a speculative one. ironSource had relied on declarations stating that it had suspended products that might infringe the original claims. The court found, however, that ironSource lacked standing to pursue the appeal because it had not shown evidence of concrete plans to reintroduce prior products or introduce new products implicating the narrower substitute claims.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
