951 F. Supp. 2d 1083
E.D. Ark.2013Background
- PerfectVision sues for a declaratory judgment that its SignaLoc connector does not infringe PPC's continuity patents.
- PPC offered an unconditional covenant not to sue, arguing there is no case or controversy and challenging subject-matter jurisdiction.
- PPC filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss; PerfectVision sought to amend its complaint; PPC sought transfer to NY; PerfectVision sought to enjoin the NY suit.
- Allegations include an Oct. 4, 2012 filing and a covenant that conditioned liability on product versions and potential future changes.
- The court stayed proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision in Already, LLC v. Nike; after Already, amendments and related actions occurred, including later Ehret Patent developments.
- The court addresses whether PPC’s covenant is unconditional/irrevocable, whether amendments relate back, and whether transfer or injunction is appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PPC’s covenant divested subject-matter jurisdiction | PerfectVision | PPC | Covenant not to sue not unconditional; jurisdiction not divested |
| Whether amendment relates back to original complaint for the Ehret Patent | PerfectVision | PPC | Amendment relates back; second amended complaint granted |
| Whether the court should transfer this action to the Northern District of New York | PerfectVision | PPC | Transfer denied |
| Whether the court should enjoin the NY action | PerfectVision | PPC | Enjoin denied |
| Whether PPC’s covenant and related conduct affects jurisdiction or related litigation considerations | PerfectVision | PPC | Covenant not to sue insufficient to moot controversy; no blanket dispute divestment |
Key Cases Cited
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721 (U.S. 2013) (unconditional covenants may moot but must be absolutely clear not to resume enforcement)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (U.S. 2007) (standing and actual controversy; threat of enforcement can support jurisdiction)
- Nike, Inc. v. Already, LLC, 663 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2011) (case-or-controversy requirement; covenant analysis in DJ actions)
- SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 480 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (covenants not to sue can fail to divest jurisdiction if ongoing enforcement is shown)
- Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 556 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (retaining rights to future enforcement preserves controversy)
- Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Ablaise Ltd., 606 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (covenant not to sue not unconditional if it leaves room to pursue future claims)
- Intel Corp. v. Amberwave Sys. Corp., 233 F.R.D. 416 (D. Del. 2005) (court-specific discussion on related patents and overlapping issues)
- Already, v. Nike, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 721 (U.S. 2013) (already cited above; substitute phrasing for consistency)
- Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 482 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (related patent litigation considerations in exclusivity and jurisdiction)
- Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 998 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (forum preference for first-filed action; later authorities noted)