Privity Archives - IP UPDATE

Suite! Claim Splitting Privity Focuses on Party Relationship, Not Claim Relationship

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit revived a hotel group’s federal trade secret suit against two former employees, finding that the district court did not have enough information to conclude that the hotel group improperly split claims between federal and state actions. Armadillo Hotel Group, LLC v. Harris, Case No. 22-50945 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2023) (Smith, Southwick, Higginson, JJ.)

Armadillo Hotel Group is a buyer and operator of modular and mobile structures throughout North America. According to Armadillo, it hired Todd Harris and Jason McDaniel to oversee Armadillo’s construction operations and its hotel, food and beverage operations. The relationship deteriorated after a few years, leading to Harris and McDaniel’s resignations.

Harris and McDaniel subsequently sued Armadillo Hotel Group Management (AHG Management) in Texas state court alleging that they entered employment agreements with AHG Management as part of the joint venture, but AHG Management breached these agreements by failing to pay the agreed upon salary, bonuses and profit-sharing interests. The precise relationship between Armadillo and AHG Management is unclear. AHG Management filed counterclaims, agreeing that it hired Harris and McDaniel but arguing that they breached their fiduciary duties by failing to devote their full attention to their responsibilities and diverted business opportunities to their own companies, which allegedly competed with AHG Management.

The parties conducted discovery in state court, after which AHG Management filed an amended counterclaim in state court, removing its claim against Harris and McDaniel for improper expropriation of proprietary and confidential documents. That same day, Armadillo filed a complaint in federal district court against Harris, McDaniel and several new parties, including Southeastern Disaster Relief Services (SDRS), a business affiliated with McDaniel; Battlement Mesa Consulting, LLC (BMC), a business affiliated with Harris; and Grand Majestic Lodge (GML), a competitor of Armadillo. Armadillo’s complaint alleged that Harris and McDaniel misappropriated trade secrets that they shared with SDRS, BMC and GML during and after their employment with Armadillo. The complaint also included claims under the federal Defend Trade Secret Act (DTSA), alleging that the five defendants conspired to misappropriate the trade secrets.

Harris, McDaniel, SDRS and BMC moved to dismiss the federal complaint for impermissible splitting of claims relating to Harris and McDaniel’s employment between the state court proceedings and this new federal lawsuit. The district court granted the motion with prejudice. While acknowledging the “apparent difference between Defendant AHG Management LLC in the state-law action and Plaintiff Armadillo in [the district court] case,” the district court found that the prohibition against claim splitting applied because the same claims were first removed from AHG Management’s counterclaim in the state court proceedings and then asserted by Armadillo in the federal action. The district court also found that the claims arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts—Harris and McDaniel’s employment—and shared a common factual predicate. Armadillo appealed.

The rule against claim splitting prohibits a party or parties in privity from simultaneously prosecuting multiple suits involving the same subject matter against the same defendants. In situations where a [...]

Continue Reading

No Estoppel in the Name of Different Interests and Claims

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that 35 USC § 314(d) did not bar its review of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board determination that a petitioner was not estopped from maintaining inter partes review (IPR) proceedings since the alleged estoppel-triggering event occurred post-institution. Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Facebook Inc., Case Nos. 19-1688, -1689 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2021) (Chen, J.)

Facebook and WhatsApp (collectively, Facebook) filed two IPR proceedings challenging certain claims of Uniloc’s patents. Apple also filed a petition challenging a subset of claims of the patent. Facebook subsequently filed a third petition that was substantively identical to Apple’s petition and also filed a motion to join Apple’s IPR. LG Electronics filed petitions identical to Facebook’s three petitions and also filed motions to join Facebook’s IPRs. The Board instituted Facebook’s third petition and granted Facebook’s motion to join Apple’s IPR. The Board then instituted Facebook’s original IPRs and ordered the parties to “brief the applicability, if any, of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1)” against Facebook, in light of the soon-to-be-issued final written decision for Apple’s IPR. At the time, LG’s petition and motion to join Facebook’s IPRs had not been decided.

In response to the Board’s order, Facebook argued that it should not be estopped under § 315 from challenging the patentability of any claim upon the issuance of a final written decision in Apple’s IPR. Facebook argued that if the Board did find it estopped, Facebook should be able to continue as a petitioner against one of the claims, which it never challenged, in Apple’s IPR. Facebook also argued that if LG’s IPR petition was granted and LG was joined as a party to its first IPR, the IPR should proceed as to all challenged claims (regardless of whether Facebook was found estopped) because LG was not a party in Apple’s IPR. Uniloc responded, arguing that once the Board issued a final written decision in Apple’s IPR, Facebook would be estopped as to all claims challenged in its first IPR and the Board must terminate that proceeding. Uniloc also argued that allowing LG to join the IPR would create inefficiency and confusion.

The Board ultimately instituted LG’s IPR petitions and granted LG’s motion to join Facebook’s IPRs. In its Patent Owner Responses to the original Facebook IPR petitions, Uniloc argued that LG should be barred from maintaining the first Facebook IPR once the Board issued a final written decision in the Apple IPR because LG was estopped as a real party in interest (RPI) or privy to Facebook. A few months later, the Board issued a final written decision in the Apple IPR upholding the patentability of all challenged claims. The Board’s decision in the first Facebook IPR found that Facebook was estopped under § 315(e)(1) as to claims also challenged in Apple’s IPR, but not other claims since § 315(e)(1)’s estoppel provisions apply only to grounds that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised “with respect to that claim.”

In its final [...]

Continue Reading