479 B.R. 280
Bankr. S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Kodak bankruptcy case filed Jan 19, 2012; Kodak seeks to sell 1,000+ digital imaging patents, including 13 Disputed Patents, with Apple and FlashPoint asserting ownership and inventorship rights.
- Jointly Disputed Patents include 335, 406, 703, 218, 854, 342, 161, 605, 084, 391, and 854 patents; Additional Disputed Patents include 743, 192, and 444.
- Kodak and Apple collaboration in early 1990s; 1994 Development Agreement for Aspen/Phobos projects; Apple spin-off of FlashPoint in 1996 with ownership/assignment provisions.
- Kodak-FlashPoint licensing history (1997 Development Agreement, 1997 License, 1998 Development Agreement, 2003 Patent Agreement) and tolling/standstill arrangements; Fry consulting relationship
- Kodak pursued ITC and W.D.N.Y. actions over 218 and 335 patents; this adversary proceeding was filed Jun 18, 2012 to determine property-ownership and to obtain relief in sale of the patents.
- Court grants Kodak summary judgment in part and denies in part, with issues remaining for a more complete record
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inventorship claims are barred by laches | Apple/FlashPoint arose after long delay; laches should bar claims | Delay excused or not prejudicial; not on inquiry notice for all patents | Laches applies to 335 and 218 patents; denies for Miscellaneous Patents |
| Whether state-law ownership/related claims are time-barred | Discovery rule extends accrual; delays tollable | Accrual and discovery rules do not save untimely claims | 335/218 barred by California statutes; others not untimely on record |
| Whether equitable tolling or other doctrines save any FlashPoint claims | Equitable tolling applies due to ongoing collaboration | No basis to toll; tolling periods irrelevant to key patents | Tolling not sufficient to defeat laches for the key patents; some claims denied on laches |
Key Cases Cited
- A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed.Cir. 1992) (two-element laches test; prejudice and unreasonable delay)
- Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Scimed Life Sys., Inc., 988 F.2d 1157 (Fed.Cir. 1993) (delay measured from actual or inquiry notice; six-year presumption)
- Serdarevic v. Advanced Med. Optics, Inc., 532 F.3d 1352 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (presumption of laches; burden to show excused delay or no prejudice)
- Wanlass v. General Electric Co., 148 F.3d 1334 (Fed.Cir. 1998) (duty to investigate where conduct is pervasive/open/notorious)
- Wanlass v. Fedders Corp., 145 F.3d 1461 (Fed.Cir. 1998) (illustrates limits of presumption and need for factual record)
- Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 583 F.3d 832 (Fed.Cir. 2009) (accrual of ownership claims can precede patent issuance in some contexts)
- Hall v. Aqua Queen Mfg., Inc., 93 F.3d 1548 (Fed.Cir. 1996) (public, open, and notorious activity can trigger duty to inspect)
- General Electric Co. v. Wanlass, 148 F.3d 1334 (Fed.Cir. 1998) (duty to inspect in pervasive industry activity)