USPPS, LTD. v. Avery Dennison Corp.
676 F.3d 1341
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- USPPS sued Avery, Renner, and DuChez for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty arising from patent prosecution of Beasley’s '712 application and related continuation, which Avery allegedly mishandled and funded; Beasley transferred the patent to USPPS in 2001; PTO ultimately abandoned the applications in May 2003; district court dismissed as time-barred; Fifth Circuit transferred to Federal Circuit citing §1338; court affirmed dismissal on timeliness and jurisdiction grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction under §1338 to hear purely state-law claims. | USPPS argues §1338 transfers control to Federal Circuit. | Avery/Renner argue no patent-law question; no exclusive jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction lacking; but transfer decisions discussed (see concurring opinions). |
| Whether USPPS's claims are timely under the four-year limitations period. | Discovery rule tolls accrual. | Limitations began May 2003; discovery rule does not apply. | Claims time-barred; accrual by May 2003. |
| Whether the discovery rule tolls accrual given undiscoverable wrongful acts. | Injury undiscoverable in May 2003; due diligence required. | By May 2003 USPPS knew injury and mismanagement. | Discovery rule not available. |
| Whether the fraudulent concealment doctrine tolls the statute. | Renner/Avery fraud concealed facts about representation. | Not applicable; USPPS had knowledge by May 2003. | Fraudulent concealment tolling not applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Brouse McDowell, L.P.A., 596 F.3d 1355 (Fed.Cir.2010) (malpractice claim requires patentability to establish damages)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (S. Ct. 2005) (tests for federal-question jurisdiction in state-law claims)
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (S. Ct. 1988) (establishes law-of-the-case and jurisdiction principles)
- Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (S. Ct. 2006) (Grable distinctions; pure questions of law vs. fact-specific)
- Byrne v. Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP, 676 F.3d 1024 (Fed.Cir.2012) (calls for reconsideration of jurisdiction in patent malpractice)
- Air Measurement Techs., Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., 504 F.3d 1262 (Fed.Cir.2007) (patent-related malpractice jurisdiction discussions)
- Immunocept, LLC v. Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, 504 F.3d 1281 (Fed.Cir.2007) (patent-related malpractice jurisdiction discussions)
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex.1999) (Texas limitations discovery principles)