The Federal Circuit's ruling on May 2nd, 2024 in SnapRays dba SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group (2023-1184), regarding the use of Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program has significant implications for patent litigation strategy, particularly influencing where such cases can be filed. The decision established that engaging in the APEX program could expose patent owners to declaratory judgment actions in the accused infringer's home state.
This contrasts with the traditional understanding whereby merely sending a cease-and-desist letter does not establish sufficient grounds for personal jurisdiction. The critical factor in the SnapPower decision was that the APEX program could lead to automatic removal of a product from Amazon, affecting the accused infringer's sales and operations within their state, thereby establishing a tangible link to that jurisdiction.
This ruling necessitates a more cautious approach from patent owners, compelling them to consider the potential for litigation in various jurisdictions before initiating claims through APEX. The decision aligns with broader judicial principles set by the TC Heartland case, where the Supreme Court ruled that patent infringement cases must be filed in the judicial district where the defendant resides or has an established place of business. This ensures that the venue for patent litigation is predictably tied to a geographical location that has a substantive connection to the alleged infringement.
The Federal Circuit's SnapPower decision reinforces this principle by interpreting the use of online enforcement tools like APEX as an extension of a patent owner's reach into the accused infringer's locale, thereby justifying personal jurisdiction based on the economic impact of their actions.
Contact us to discuss your options if you are an Amazon Seller who has received a cease and desist letter alleging infringement or you are a patent owner who suspects an Amazon seller is infringement your patent rights.