USPPS, Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp.
541 F. App'x 386
5th Cir.2013Background
- Beasley filed a patent application for personalized postage stamps with the PTO in 1999; Avery Dennison agreed to prosecute and pay fees; Beasley transferred title to USPPS; Renner discovered undisclosed prior art and filed information disclosure; a royalty/marketing agreement between Avery and USPPS arose; the district court dismissed USPPS’s claims as untimely, leading to multiple appellate transfers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether USPPS’s claims are time-barred | USPPS argues discovery or fraud rules delay accrual | Defendants contend accrual occurred in 2004 and that exceptions do not apply | Yes; claims untimely despite exceptions |
| Whether the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction | Gunn controls; patent issues require exclusive jurisdiction | Gunn same framework but not exclusive here due to diversity | Federal Circuit lacks exclusive jurisdiction; Fifth Circuit retains jurisdiction |
| Whether Gunn undermines prior transfer by treating patent questions as controlling | Gunn shows patent issues are central to jurisdiction | Gunn limited transfer impact to exclusive jurisdiction | Gunn does not require returning to Fifth Circuit; jurisdiction remains proper in Fifth Circuit |
| Whether discovery rule or fraudulent concealment delayed accrual | Either rule postpones accrual | Neither rule applies to delay accrual here | Neither rule postponed accrual; untimeliness stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059 (2013) (arising-under jurisdiction not often triggered by state-law claims; exclusive jurisdiction not implied)
- USPPS, Ltd. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 676 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (discusses timeliness and the role of discovery/fraud in accrual)