Patent Infringement Suit Against Indemnitee Forecloses IPR Petition by Indemnitor

May 29, 2024

Reading Time : 3 min

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of a petition for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because the petition was filed more than one year after patent owner had served a complaint for patent infringement against a seller of accused lighting products. The PTAB concluded that the seller was a real party in interest (RPI) to petitioner based on an indemnification relationship between the two entities. Therefore, institution of the petition was time-barred because petitioner filed the petition more than a year after an RPI had been served with a complaint.

Petitioner and seller were parties to an agreement whereby petitioner agreed to indemnify seller against claims of patent infringement arising from seller’s use, sale, or offering for sale of goods provided by petitioner. In August 2022, patent owner filed a complaint alleging that seller’s importation, offering for sale, and selling the accused products infringed claims of six of patent owner’s patents. In October 2022, seller filed a third-party complaint against petitioner seeking indemnification. In its answer, petitioner filed crossclaims against patent owner seeking declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity for each of the asserted patents. In October 2023, petitioner filed a petition for IPR against one of the asserted patents.

Patent owner argued, and the PTAB ultimately agreed, that seller was an RPI to petitioner because the IPR petition was filed at the behest of seller. In this regard, the board noted that seller made multiple demands for indemnification and petitioner acknowledged that it was liable for a portion of seller’s expenses and costs in the litigation. Petitioner also responded to seller’s demand for indemnification by seeking a declaration from the district court that the claims of the challenged patent were invalid. As further indication that petitioner’s and seller’s interests aligned, the PTAB observed that the invalidity grounds and prior art references set forth in the IPR petition largely overlapped with the invalidity contentions that seller and petitioner jointly served in the district court litigation. Further, the PTAB stated that seller stood to benefit from a favorable decision on the IPR petition as that would relieve seller from any liability for infringement.

The board rejected petitioner’s arguments that seller was not an RPI to the proceeding. Petitioner argued that its interests were not aligned with seller’s because petitioner was potentially liable to many more sellers of accused products, and a holding in favor of seller or a settlement between seller and patent owner would not necessarily apply to petitioner and its other customers. The PTAB stated that the objective of the RPI analysis was not to probe petitioner’s interest, but to assess the mutual interests of petitioner and seller. Petitioner also argued that it did not coordinate with seller in filing the IPR petition. The board noted that in the district court proceeding, petitioner and seller had communicated about indemnification through public court filings and coordinated on invalidity positions. The board distinguished this proceeding from cases in which an indemnification agreement alone, without something more, was insufficient to establish an RPI relationship.

Because seller was an RPI to the proceeding, petitioner’s IPR petition was time-barred under § 315(b) by patent owner’s filing of the infringement action against seller more than one year prior. In view of seller being an RPI, the board did not reach the question of whether seller was a “privy of the petitioner” under § 315(b).

Practice Tip: A determination of whether a party is an RPI requires both practical and equitable considerations with a focus on preexisting relationships with the petitioner to which the non-party benefits. A coordinated invalidity strategy between parties to an indemnification agreement and repeated demands by the non-party for indemnity may support a finding of RPI. Therefore, a party to an indemnification agreement wishing to file an IPR proceeding in view of an indemnity demand by a counterparty should carefully and promptly consider whether that party could be deemed to be an RPI. Delays in filing an IPR in this circumstance may risk the petition being time-barred under § 315(b).

Luminex Int’l Co. v. Signify Holdings B.V., IPR2024-00101, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. May 9, 2024).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

November 1, 2024

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission articulated a bright-line test for patent expert admissibility: to testify from the perspective of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” (POSITA), the expert must at least meet the definition of a POSITA for the patents-in-suit. Absent that level of skill, Kyocera holds that the witness’s testimony is not sufficiently reliable or relevant enough to be relied on by a fact-finder.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 29, 2024

The PTAB denied a petitioner’s motion to compel routine discovery that sought information from a parallel ITC investigation for alleged inconsistent positions taken by patent owner in the IPR. The board found that patent owner had not taken inconsistent positions but warned patent owner that it had an ongoing duty to produce any information inconsistent with arguments made during the present IPR, even if that information related to arguments patent owner had dropped at the ITC.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 11, 2024

The Central District of California ruled that the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) applies to all three prongs of a false patent marking claim, including the third prong, competitive injury. In doing so, took a clear stand on an issue with a nationwide split among district courts.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

October 3, 2024

The Federal Circuit recently upheld the USPTO’s authority under the estoppel provision 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(d)(3)(i) to prohibit a patent owner from obtaining patent claims that are not patentably distinct from claims previously declared unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. However, the court clarified that the regulation applies only to new claims or amended claims, not previously issued claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 27, 2024

In Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that an expert must meet the definition of a “person of ordinary skill in the art” of the asserted patents in order to opine on infringement, among other issues. This new bright-line test and the underlying rationale, however, raised several new questions regarding expert admissibility. SeeFederal Circuit: Narrow Definition of Skill in the Art Dooms Expert’s Testimony” and “Grappling With A Bright-Line Patent Expert Admissibility Test.” The Federal Circuit recently addressed one of those questions, namely whether an expert must have acquired the requisite level of skill as of the time of the invention or whether it is sufficient for an expert to acquire that knowledge at a later date.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 23, 2024

The Director of the USPTO initiated sua sponte review of a PTAB panel’s decision to impose sanctions based on patentee’s conduct during IPR proceedings. The PTAB cancelled all of patentee’s claims, including those not unpatentable on the merits, after finding that patentee deliberately withheld data relevant to the patentability of the claims at issue. In her review, the Director addressed which regulations are implicated upon a party’s misconduct during AIA proceedings and addressed whether entry of judgment in the trial was an appropriate sanction.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 18, 2024

The Western District of Texas granted a motion to stay a patent infringement lawsuit pending inter partes review not only because doing so would simplify the issues in the still-early litigation and reduce the burden on the parties, but also because the non-moving party failed to diligently file its lawsuit despite a protracted negotiations period.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 16, 2024

The Federal Circuit dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review (“IPR”) final written decision for lack of standing where it found the appellant failed to provide evidence sufficient to show it suffered an injury in fact.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.