How PTAB Privity Ruling Constrains Federal Contractors
Published date | 15 May 2020 |
Author | Mr Lionel Lavenue, Kelly Lu and Regan Rundio |
Subject Matter | Intellectual Property, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Patent, Trials & Appeals & Compensation |
Law Firm | Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP |
The ongoing process of reconciling how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board fits within the broader patent regime continues almost nine years after Congress' passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
The PTAB, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court have all recently weighed in on how the PTAB interacts with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the exclusive forum for patent infringement claims against the federal government.
In Microsoft Corp. v. Science Applications International Corp.,1 the PTAB denied institution of a federal contractor's related inter partes review petitions, holding them time-barred under Title 35 of U.S. Code Section 315(b).
In June 2017, patent owner Science Application International Corp. sued the government for infringing its patents directed to rapid target acquisition, a feature that petitioner Microsoft Corp. allegedly implemented in a product it provided the government under a November 2018 contract.
The institution decision held that Section 315(b) barred Microsoft's IPR petitions against SAIC's asserted patents because (1) Microsoft and the government were in privity and (2) Microsoft filed the petitions more than a year after June 2017. The board also indicated that it would, as an alternative, exercise its discretion to deny institution as a means of comporting with the holding in Return Mail Inc. v. United Postal Service.2
This article discusses the legal and factual background of the PTAB's Microsoft decision, how it applied the privity standard, the decision's impact on federal contractors, and how to square it with a similar PTAB decision from 2016.
Background
Third-Party Practice at the COFC
Federal contractors may nevertheless find themselves in these specialized proceedings in the role of government indemnitor Federal contracting regulations typically require suppliers to indemnify the government from patent infringement liability.8 If a contractor-indemnitor's activity or related activities of federal government are found to infringe, its continued performance under the contract exposes it to mounting indemnification liability.
Compounding a contractor's predicament is the government's inability to cede control of its litigation defense to a third party.9 The contractor-indemnitor bereft of control of its indemnitee's defense but exposed to indemnification liability, may join a Section 1498(a) action as a third party.10 In that capacity, it may present defenses against any alleged infringement, including defenses distinct from the government's.
The IPR Section 315(b) Time Bar
An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.
This provision is particularly salient for contractor-indemnitors because they are (i) at risk of being deemed in privity with their customers and (ii) often only notified that products or services they supply are the subject of a complaint long after service.
As discussed below, the PTAB recently denied a series of IPR petitions by applying Section 315(b) to Microsoft in its capacity as a federal contractor.
Microsoft v. SAIC
To continue reading
Request your trial