has waived his right to appeal. 3 . The District Court had diversity jurisdiction. over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 4 . We afforded the parties the opportunity to address the standing issue, and in our correspondence to the parties we cited both Rauscher and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Treesdale, 419 F.3d 216 (3d Cir.2005), as potentially controlling authority. The parties inevitably agreed that Rauscher (and F.3d 688, 690 (6th Cir.1994) (same), Yniguez v. Arizona, 939 F.2d 727, 731 (9th Cir.1991) (same), Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir.1989) (same), and United States Postal Serv. v. Brennan, 579 F.2d 188, 190 (2d Cir.1978) (same), with Mausolf v. Babbitt, 85 F.3d 1295, 1300 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), and United States v. 36.96 Acres of Land, 754
recognizing that the government not the relator must have suffered the injury in fact required for article iii standing holding that because article iii standing is jurisdictional it must be decided before other legal issues holding noneconomic harm satisfies article iii standing requirements holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention holding that article iii constitutional standing must be addressed before considering lanham act prudential standing