Vantage Point Tech v. Amazon
Vantage Point Technology, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. Case No. 2:13-cv-909-JRG.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Marshall Division,
January 6, 2015.
Case Details:
The Plaintiff, Vantage Point Technology, filed several lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas against two types of defendants, claiming infringement of the ‘750 Patent and the ‘329 Patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,463,750 and U.S. Patent No. 6,374,329):
(1) Companies that design and manufacture chipsets (chipset makers)
(2) Companies that utilize chipsets in their products (chipset consumers).
Vantage Point claimed that these chipset makers directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘750 patent: Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, Freescale, NVIDIA, Marvell, and MediaTek USA.
Vantage Point also filed suit against various chipset consumers who purchase chipsets from at least one of the chipset makers in question. These “moving defendants” include Amazon.com and Apple Inc. Amazon sells products manufactured by Texas Instruments and Freescale.
In September of 2014, the Court transferred Apple to the Northern District of California. However, chipset makers Texas Instruments, Freescale, and MediaTek are still active defendants before this Court, along with all of the Moving Defendants, including Amazon.com.
Plaintiff’s Argument:
- Vantage Point alleged that Amazon.com, as a chipset consumer, directly infringes upon at least one claim of the ‘750 patent.
Amazon’s Argument:
- Amazon.com and the other Moving Defendants alleged that they are mere consumers and therefore, their respective cases should be stayed pending the resolution of the maker’s case.
- All of the moving defendants, including Amazon, requested a stay based on the consumer-suit exception to the traditional “first-to-file” rule.
Summary and Conclusion:
The Federal Circuit suggests that the following three factors are considered in the decision to stay:
- Whether the consumers in the first-filed action are mere resellers of products manufactured by the party in the second-filed action
- Whether the consumers in the first-filed action have agreed to be bound by any decision in the second-filed action
- Whether the manufacturers in the second-filed action are the only source of the alleged infringement,
The Court adopts a “flexible approach” in order to assess whether or not to grant the motion to stay. The Moving Defendants are divided into groups based on factual similarities. Amazon.com is analyzed with Sharp’s claims, with both companies having pending cases in the Eastern District of Texas. The factual scenario surrounding Amazon’s and Sharp’s requests for a stay are substantially similar to each other for this reason.
- Amazon and Sharp request a stay based on the consumer-suit exception even though the facts of their respective cases do not fall under the classic consumer-suit exception:
- There is no “second-filed” case in a different forum. Instead, both the consumer and manufacturer have pending cases in the same forum, and those cases have been consolidated for all pretrial concerns.
Amazon and Sharp have not agreed to be bound by the findings of the first trial. Instead, Amazon and Sharp have only agreed to be bound by findings made “regarding the technical operation of the” chipsets. This leaves only “additional issues” to be litigated in the chipset consumer’s trial.
With the Court’s announced command that the chipset makers’ cases will proceed to trial first, Amazon’s and Sharp’s respective motions to stay are denied.