RPost Holdings, Inc. v. DocuSign, Inc., 2:12-cv-00683

Background

Plaintiffs RPost Holdings, Inc. et al. sued DocuSign, Inc. and numerous downstream “Customer Defendants” for alleged patent infringement (asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 6,182,219; 8,161,104; 8,209,389; 8,224,913).
The parties jointly moved to sever and stay the claims against all Customer Defendants (all named except DocuSign), invoking the “customer‑suit exception” and asking the court to proceed only against DocuSign.
The parties made multiple stipulations: they would be bound by DocuSign‑case rulings on infringement/validity; discovery directed at customers would be routed through DocuSign; DocuSign indemnified the customers; and plaintiffs could pursue customer‑specific damages in a later trial subject to limits.
The court explained the Federal Circuit’s customer‑suit exception generally applies where separate suits pit a supplier against customers, not where a single suit includes both supplier and customers.
Although the court rejected a categorical application of the customer‑suit exception to a single case, it exercised discretion based on the parties’ stipulations and granted the requested severance and stay: claims against the Customer Defendants were moved into a new, consolidated member case and that member case was stayed; the DocuSign lead case remains active.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the customer‑suit exception requires staying/severing customers when supplier and customers are defendants in the same suit	The parties argued the relationship falls within the customer‑suit exception (per In re Nintendo) and so the customers should be severed and stayed	Same: movants jointly requested severance/stay and relied on Nintendo framework	Court: Exception typically applies to separate parallel suits, not a single suit; but court exercised discretion and granted severance/stay based on the parties’ stipulations
Whether the court may rely on the parties’ stipulations (binding rulings, discovery routing, indemnity, damages limits) to justify severance/stay	Plaintiffs relied on and proposed those binding stipulations as a basis for severance/stay	Defendants (DocuSign and customers) agreed to the stipulations to effectuate the requested posture	Court: Relied on the stipulations, warned parties they are judicially bound by representations, and used them as the basis to grant the motion
Proper case management remedy and effect of the order	Plaintiffs sought to avoid duplicative litigation and preserve ability to obtain customer‑specific relief later	Defendants agreed to consolidation and a stayed member case while DocuSign case proceeds	Court: Ordered new member case for Customer Defendants, consolidated with lead case (DocuSign lead), stayed the member case; DocuSign case proceeds under existing docket control order
Whether the stipulated posture could be used to seek attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285	Plaintiffs would reserve fee rights generally but parties agreed not to use the stipulation/posture as a basis for § 285 fees	Defendants agreed the stipulation should not be used to seek § 285 fees	Court noted the parties’ agreement on fees in the motion (preserved other fee rights)

Key Cases Cited

In re Nintendo of Am., 756 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (articulates the customer‑suit exception framework relied on by the parties)
Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co., 657 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (customer‑suit exception applies where separate suits involve supplier and downstream customers)
In re Dell Inc., [citation="600 F. App'x 728"] (Fed. Cir. 2015) (distinguishing single‑suit scenarios from the situations requiring stay under customer‑suit precedent)
Gabarick v. Laurin Mar. (Am.) Inc., 753 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2014) (parties are judicially estopped from contradicting representations made to and relied upon by a court)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (judicial estoppel principles)