August 06, 2015
Authored and Edited by Aaron L. Parker
Last week, the PTAB clarified its application of standing in Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews in Texas Assoc of Realtors v Property Disclosure Technologies, LLC.
Under the AIA, a person may only file a transitional CBM petition if it, or a real party in interest or privity, has been sued for infringement or charged with infringement under that patent. The AIA regulations clarify that “charged with infringement” means a “real or substantial controversy” such that the petitioner would have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in Federal court.
In Texas Association, Petitioner asserted standing because Patent Owner (PO) had filed suit against numerous real estate brokers and providers who operate websites similar to those owned by Petitioner. Petitioner also argued that its clients and customers, who have been sued by PO, use data from its product to create their own websites, and thus Petitioner has standing to protect them from attack by PO.
The PTAB rejected these arguments. First, there had been no direct contact between Petitioner and PO concerning the patent-in-suit, let alone cease-and-desist letters. This “weighed heavily” against there being a “substantial controversy” and instead was more akin to a petitioner merely disagreeing with the existence of a patent or suffering an attenuated, non-proximate, effect from the existence of a patent, which is insufficient to establish standing under the Supreme Court’s MedImmune - 549_U.S._118. Although Petitioner attempted to distinguish from the Federal Circuit’s Assoc for Molecular Pathology - 689_F.3d_1303, where the declaratory judgment plaintiff had not practiced the claimed invention, this did not outweigh other facts, especially the lack of direct contact between Petitioner and PO.
The PTAB also rejected Petitioner’s second argument, noting that to establish a supplier’s liability for induced or contributory infringement, a showing of direct contact between Petitioner and PO is even more necessary. Petitioner also failed to establish an alternative basis for supplier declaratory judgment standing because there was no evidence that Petitioner was obligated to indemnify its clients and customers who had been sued by PO.
Finally, the PTAB noted that all actions against Petitioner’s clients and customers were dismissed prior to the filing of the CBM petition. Thus, the PTAB determined that Petitioner did not have standing to file a CBM review and denied institution.
This decision serves as guidance that without direct contact between Petitioner and PO over the patent-in-suit, it may be an uphill battle for a supplier to establish CBM standing, particularly for a supplier with no obligation to indemnify its customers.
Copyright © 2015 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
Building a Strong ADC Patent Portfolio – From Prosecution and Litigation Perspectives
May 15, 2024
Webinar
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.