SCOTUS Seeks Government Opinion in Amazon Web Hosting Patent Case


The Amazon web service logo is shown in this illustrative photo from June 8, 2017. REUTERS / Carlos Jasso / Illustration

  • Federal Circuit concluded claims against Amazon were excluded based on related case
  • Plaintiff PersonalWeb said specific patent doctrine flouts precedent

The names of companies and law firms shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this functionality as we continue to test and develop in beta. We appreciate comments, which you can provide using the comments tab on the right of the page.

(Reuters) – The United States Supreme Court on Monday sought the opinion of the United States government on a case in which Inc and sites that use its hosting service, including Patreon Inc, BuzzFeed Inc and Vox Media Inc escaped the infringement claims of a patent holding company. .

The Federal Circuit discovered last year that PersonalWeb Technologies LLC could not sue Amazon and several websites hosted by Amazon Web Services (AWS) for violating its data transmission patents because the e-commerce giant had already rejected PersonalWeb’s claims. in a separate trial.

The court cited the 1907 Supreme Court decision in Kessler v. Eldred, in which a patent owner who unsuccessfully sued a manufacturer for patent infringement was barred from suing a customer for infringement based on the same product.

“The Court in Kessler recognized that even if a product manufacturer were to prevail in a patent infringement action, the manufacturer could be deprived of the benefits of its victory if the patentee were free to sue the manufacturer’s customers,” said the Federal Circuit.

PersonalWeb said in its April petition for Supreme Court review that the High Court had not cited the century-old case that has given the doctrine its name for nearly 70 years, and that “in the absence of Congressional directives, courts should not create special procedural rules for patent cases. “

The High Court did not give the United States Solicitor General a deadline on Monday to rule on the case.

Amazon declined to comment. PersonalWeb and its lead lawyer Jeffrey Lamken of MoloLamken did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did Amazon lead lawyer David Hadden of Fenwick & West.

PersonalWeb dropped its previous claims against Amazon and the AWS user Dropbox in federal court in East Texas in 2014, after interpretation by the patent court favored Amazon.

He went on to prosecute dozens of other alleged violators in other courts starting in 2018, including several lawsuits against AWS customers where Amazon intervened.

In its opinion last year, the Federal Circuit said some of the infringement claims were barred because they had been raised in the previous lawsuit, and claims brought after that action ended were prohibited by the Kessler Doctrine, which allows “a non-infringing judge to avoid repeated harassment for continuing his activities as usual.”

The appeals court said the doctrine “fills the void” when infringement claims would not otherwise be excluded.

But Kessler “didn’t invent a new broad exclusionary category,” and ordinary exclusionary rules should apply, PersonalWeb argued in its April petition.

Amazon urged the Supreme Court to deny the review, arguing in its response to the petition for certi fi cation of no amicus curiae supporting the petition other than another professional patent claim entity. “

The case is PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. Patreon Inc, United States Supreme Court, No. 20-1394.

For PersonalWeb: Jeffrey Lamken from MoloLamken; and Michael Sherman of Stubbs Alderton & Markiles

For Amazon and its customers: David Hadden of Fenwick & West; and Stephen Kinnaird by Paul Hastings

Read more:

Fed Circuit Launches Data Storage Patent Applications Against Amazon

Blake brittain

Blake Brittain reports on intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. Contact him at [email protected]

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.