Patent Owners Beware: Expanded Jurisdiction Risks In Using Third-Party Platforms To Remove Infringing Listings

DW
Dickinson Wright PLLC

Contributor

Dickinson Wright is a general practice business law firm with more than 475 attorneys among more than 40 practice areas and 16 industry groups. With 19 offices across the U.S. and in Toronto, we offer clients exceptional quality and client service, value for fees, industry expertise and business acumen.
In May 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a pivotal decision in Snaprays (SnapPower) v. Light Defense Group (LDG) that reshaped how patent owners enforce their rights using third.
United States Utah Intellectual Property

In May 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a pivotal decision in Snaprays (SnapPower) v. Light Defense Group (LDG) that reshaped how patent owners enforce their rights using third-party platforms like Amazon. The ruling reversed a district court's dismissal of a declaratory judgment suit, finding that a patent owner's use of Amazon's Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program exposed the patent owner to personal jurisdiction in an unexpected state.

Amazon's APEX program offers an expedited process for resolving claims that third-party listings on its marketplace infringe on utility patents, allowing patent holders to remove infringing products quickly. However, the CAFC's decision significantly expands the scope of personal jurisdiction, holding that by participating in APEX or similar programs, patent owners may inadvertently subject themselves to lawsuits in states where they would otherwise lack minimum legal contacts. This decision is likely to have broad implications for patent holders, especially those leveraging online platforms to protect their intellectual property (IP).

LDG used the APEX program to claim that SnapPower's products infringed its patents. In response, SnapPower, based in Utah, filed a declaratory judgment action in Utah, asserting that its products did not infringe. LDG, with no direct ties to Utah, argued the court lacked jurisdiction. However, the CAFC determined LDG's use of APEX was sufficient to establish jurisdiction under a three-factor test:

  1. Purposeful Direction: LDG directed activities toward Utah by submitting an APEX Agreement to remove SnapPower's listings.
  2. Relation to the Claim: The claim was directly related to LDG's actions in the forum state.
  3. Reasonableness and Fairness: The CAFC ruled that LDG failed to show that asserting jurisdiction would be unreasonable or unfair.

The CAFC emphasized that LDG's use of APEX went beyond merely sending cease-and-desist letters. The automated nature of Amazon's takedown process, which could automatically remove SnapPower's listings, had a direct impact on SnapPower's operations in Utah. This "something more" was enough to justify personal jurisdiction.

Traditionally, sending cease-and-desist letters or pursuing distant legal action without "something more" would not subject patent owners to jurisdiction in an alleged infringer's home state. However, the CAFC found Amazon's automatic removal process was "something more," creating significant legal exposure for patent owners using such takedown procedures to remove listings on online marketplaces.

This ruling introduces new risks for patent owners who use online marketplaces to enforce their IP rights. The ability of infringers to initiate declaratory judgment actions in jurisdictions favorable to them could complicate enforcement efforts, especially for patent owners targeting infringers in multiple states. Companies that previously viewed programs like APEX as efficient inexpensive tools for quickly addressing patent infringement may now face the prospect of being drawn into costly, time-consuming litigation in unexpected forums.

For example, by triggering APEX procedures, a patent owner could suddenly find itself defending a lawsuit in a state with less favorable patent laws or less familiarity with patent litigation. This increases not only the legal costs but also the strategic complexities involved in enforcing patent rights and could result in the invalidation the asserted patents. As a result, patent owners must now carefully consider the jurisdictional implications of using third-party enforcement mechanisms before proceeding.

Time for New Strategies

Patent owners should adopt new strategies to mitigate the heightened risks posed by the CAFC's ruling. One consideration is conducting a thorough jurisdictional analysis before initiating enforcement actions through online marketplace platforms like Amazon. Understanding where the infringer operates and how actions like product listing takedowns might affect patent owners could help patent owners better anticipate where they may be subject to litigation.

Additionally, patent owners might consider alternative enforcement mechanisms that do not carry the same jurisdictional risks as programs like APEX. Direct negotiation with alleged infringers, for instance, could allow for more controlled dispute resolution without exposing the patent owner to personal jurisdiction in a distant forum. Filing lawsuits in preferred jurisdictions or sending traditional cease-and-desist letters may also be safer alternatives.

Moreover, the CAFC's ruling underscores the importance of having a strong, defensible patent portfolio. Patent owners should review their patents to ensure that the patents are well-drafted and cover both broad and specific claims. A robust portfolio not only enhances enforcement efforts but can also serve as a deterrent to potential infringers. Conducting regular reviews of patent portfolios to identify vulnerabilities can help avoid challenges to the validity of the patents in future litigation.

Prepare to Pivot

This case highlights the potential for disruption for companies selling products on online marketplaces. For businesses that rely heavily on third-party platforms like Amazon, the removal of product listings due to patent disputes can have immediate and significant operational impacts. Losing a primary sales channel may lead to substantial revenue declines and reduced market visibility, requiring quick adjustments to maintain business operations.

Companies facing listing removals or facing the invalidation of their patents must be prepared to pivot quickly, whether by diversifying sales channels, boosting marketing efforts on alternative platforms, or exploring direct-to-consumer sales strategies. Businesses should also remain vigilant about potential IP disputes and take proactive measures to avoid infringing on existing patents and to protect their own products with patent protection.

Conducting comprehensive freedom-to-operate analyses and patent searches before launching new products is essential for minimizing the risk of IP conflicts. Early detection of potential infringement issues allows businesses to make necessary adjustments and avoid costly litigation.

Stay Proactive and Adapt

The CAFC's decision in Snaprays v. Light Defense Group serves as a stark reminder that patent enforcement through third-party platforms carries hidden jurisdictional risks. Patent owners using programs like Amazon's APEX must now weigh the benefits of these tools against the possibility of being subjected to lawsuits in distant or unfavorable jurisdictions.

By conducting thorough jurisdictional analyses, considering alternative enforcement mechanisms, and building strong patent portfolios, patent owners can better navigate these evolving legal challenges. As the landscape of online marketplaces and IP enforcement continues to shift, businesses must remain proactive and adaptable to protect their intellectual property and maintain their competitive edge.

Originally published by IPWatchdog, Inc.

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More