November 25, 2014
LES Insights
By John C. Paul; D. Brian Kacedon; Aaron Gleaton Clay
Authored by Aaron V. Gleaton, D. Brian Kacedon, and John C. Paul
A Washington district court recently protected an alleged infringer’s intra-corporate licenses from discovery after deeming them irrelevant to an analysis of patent-infringement damages. The court held that these agreements—which covered rights to substantially all of the alleged infringer’s intellectual property—were not comparable to a hypothetical license negotiation between competitors over a much narrower property right. Further, the court found, the requested discovery, which covered over 2,800 separate licenses, imposed burdens on the alleged infringer while providing little benefit to the merits of the case.
Although federal courts liberally allow discovery between parties, it is not without limitation. The information sought must be relevant to at least one party's claim or defense. Parties often test the bounds of discovery through motions asking a court to order a party to turn over certain documents or materials of alleged relevance. In resolving these disputes, courts may weigh the costs and burdens on the producing party with the relevance and probative value of the information for the discovering party.
In patent-infringement cases, a patent owner often seeks discovery of the alleged infringer's license agreements that relate to the infringed technology. Patent owners may seek to use those agreements in a damages analysis as evidence of what an alleged infringer may have paid for the infringed technology in a hypothetical license negotiation with the patent owner. An alleged infringer, however, may have strong incentives to protect the discovery of its license agreements from competitors. A recent patent-infringement case, Telebuyer, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,1 shows how these discovery disputes can play out in federal court. There, the Western District of Washington protected an alleged infringer's intra-corporate licenses from discovery after finding that they were not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation between the parties over the patented technology.
Telebuyer, LLC sued Amazon.com, Inc., among other defendants, (collectively, "Amazon"), for patent infringement. During discovery, Telebuyer asked Amazon to identify all intra-corporate licenses (i.e., licenses between a parent company and any subsidiary or between subsidiaries) pertaining to the accused technology. Telebuyer also broadly requested that Amazon turn over "[a]ll inbound or outbound patent licenses relating to the Accused Technology."
Amazon objected to both discovery requests, asserting that they covered "over 2,800" intra-corporate licenses in which Amazon transferred or licensed patents to its subsidiaries. These intra-corporate licenses broadly granted Amazon's subsidiaries "wholesale permission for Amazon's affiliates to use all of Amazon's intellectual property." Telebuyer filed a motion asking the court to order that Amazon provide the requested information. According to Telebuyer, the intra-corporate licenses were relevant, "arm's length" negotiations reflecting the true value of the conveyed intellectual property. The court disagreed.
Observing that patent damages are to be determined by the outcome of a hypothetical negotiation between the patent holder and the infringer, the court held that Amazon's intra-corporate licenses were irrelevant to Telebuyer's damages claim. Citing two reasons, the court found a "fundamental disparity in both the value and nature" of the intra-corporate licenses compared with the hypothetical negotiation. First, because Amazon's intra-corporate licenses covered substantially all of Amazon's intellectual property, those licenses granted its subsidiaries considerably more intellectual property rights than those involved in the litigation. Second, the court noted, the intra-corporate licenses involved "markedly different considerations and bargaining positions" from those between competitors such as Amazon and Telebuyer.
The court also rejected Telebuyer's argument that the intra-corporate licenses could reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence regarding aspects such as Amazon's intellectual property valuations and licensing practices. Telebuyer's request, the court observed, covered over 2,800 licenses, which would impose a burden on Amazon while providing little benefit to the case.
This decision provides an example of how the right to discovery in federal district courts is not without bounds. Overly aggressive discovery might be successfully defended on the basis of relevance. Further, within the unique context of an analysis of patent-infringement damages, discovery of intra-corporate patent licenses may be limited if they are not sufficiently comparable to the hypothetical negotiation between the patent holder and the accused infringer.
Endnotes
1 The Telebuyer, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. decision can be found at http://www.finnegan.com/files/upload/LES_Insights_Column/2014/Telebuyer_v_Amazon.pdf.
Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.
Hybrid Conference
2024 California Intellectual Property Law Institute
October 21-22,2024
San Francisco
Conference
2024 Licensing Executives Society USA – Canada Annual Meeting
October 20-23, 2024
New Orleans
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.