District Court: Notification of IPRs Necessary to Comply with Duty of Candor and Good Faith

09 May 2014 IP Litigation Current Blog

On May 2, 2014, Judge Davis of the Eastern District of Virginia determined that counsel in a pending patent litigation “failed to comply with their general duty of candor and good faith to this Court” by not disclosing the fact that the defendant had filed petitions for inter partes review on the patents-in-suit while a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of those same patents was pending before the district court. While Judge Davis did not issue a formal reprimand of those attorneys, he stated in his opinion that “the issuance of this Opinion is more than sufficient to place all patent practitioners on notice that future failures to disclose to the Court any concurrent inter partes review proceedings will be met with far sharper consequences.” (emphasis in original).

In Virginia Innovation Scis., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 12-cv-00548 (E.D. Vir.), there were five patents-in-suit. In August 2013, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of all the patents-in-suit. In September 2013, the defendants filed petitions with the PTO seeking inter partes review (“IPR”) of 37 claims from the five patents-in-suit. In January 2014, the district court issued a 72-page opinion concerning, among other things, the validity of the patents-in-suit. On March 6, 2014, the PTAB granted the request to review three of the five patents-in-suit. Approximately a week later, the plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s summary judgment ruling, bringing the IPR proceedings to the court’s attention for the first time. During the hearing on plaintiff’s motion, the court “raised the issue of the parties’ failure to notify the Court that they had begun the IPR proceeding.”  Counsel for the parties responded, as described by the court, that “it never occurred to them that they should advise this Court of such parallel proceeding.” Further, “[d]efendants seemed to suggest that they did not think to notify this Court of the IPR proceeding because this Court’s docket moved so quickly.”

Prior to analyzing the merits of plaintiff’s motion, the court reminded the parties of their “general duty of candor and good faith that encompasses an attorney’s duty to advise a district court of any development that may affect the outcome of the litigation” as well as Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct entitled “Candor Toward the Tribunal.” The court went on to explain that the duty of candor applies “when related cases are simultaneously pending in different courts” as well as when there are ”federal district court proceedings and related administrative proceeding pending at the same time.” The court then found that “[a] patent infringement suit with an invalidity counterclaim, and an IPR proceeding involving the validity of the same patent claims, fit into that category of related matters requiring notification to the respective adjudicative tribunals.”

The court explained that “[h]ad the parties promptly notified this Court of the pending petition, then the Court at least could have considered for itself what impact such related proceeding might have on the scheduling of matters, as well as whether it wished to stay the proceedings and its then-ongoing consideration of Defendants’ summary judgment motion of invalidity.” Further, “[b]y failing to advise this Court of the existence of the IPR proceedings, VIS and Samsung in effect had two bites at the apple regarding the validity of the disputed claims.”

The court concluded that:

The parties should have notified this Court of the IPR petition as soon as it was filed, and the failure to do so appears, at least to the undersigned Judge, to have been a glaring omission. By not notifying the Court, counsel have, at the very least, failed to comply with their general duty of candor and good faith to this Court because the IPR proceeding was clearly a “development which may conceivably affect the outcome of the litigation” – a fact best demonstrated by Plaintiff’s filing of the motion for reconsideration. However, in light of the undeveloped state of the law of this relatively new PTO review procedure, this Court’s admonition of all counsel involved in this case falls short of a formal reprimand of any of the individual lawyers. That said, the issuance of this Opinion is more than sufficient to place all patent practitioners on notice that future failures to disclose to the Court any concurrent inter partes review proceedings will be met with far sharper consequences.

In light of this recent opinion, perhaps we will see a trend of judges, including Judge Davis, making it an express requirement in their standing orders for patent cases that the parties must disclose to the court the existence of a petition for IPR concerning the patents-in-suit as soon as practicable, regardless of whether or not the PTAB has acted on the request.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Cryptocurrency in China is like BIG BROTHER in 1984!
20 October 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
California Governor Signs New Telehealth Insurance Law
18 October 2019
Health Care Law Today
Continued Increase in E-Commerce and Online Ordering Changes Landscape of Urban Transportation
17 October 2019
Dashboard Insights
CMS Proposes Revisions to Stark Law
16 October 2019
Health Care Law Today
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.