Amazon must face robotics infringement suit
US District Court upholds magistrate's recommendations in case | Amazon is accused of patent infringement of operational tech and methods using augmented reality.
Amazon has failed to persuade a Texas court to dismiss or transfer a patent infringement case concerning a dispute over robotics uses in its warehouse.
The US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas delivered its decision on Friday, September 29.
LightGuide, a Delaware corporation specialising in augmented reality systems, filed a patent infringement lawsuit last year alleging that Amazon willfully infringed three of its patents: US numbers 7,515,981, 9,658,614, and 10,528,036.
These patents relate to operational guide systems and methods that use augmented reality to provide visual guidance in various operational tasks, such as order processing.
LightGuide claimed that Amazon was aware of its patented technology since at least September 2016. It argued that Amazon sought information about LightGuide's technology when pretending to be interested in a potential business collaboration, and then secretly copying it.
The complaint cited instances where Amazon purchased LightGuide's systems with patented technology, marked with patent numbers, and engaged in discussions about potential use cases.
LightGuide contended that Amazon subsequently incorporated its patented technology into Amazon's warehouses without obtaining proper authorisation or licences.
LightGuide asserted that Amazon's infringement of their patents is willful and malicious, with Amazon falsely representing the technology as its own. The company claimed that Amazon's actions constitute piracy and have caused significant harm to LightGuide.
Court upholds magistrates recommendation
After extensive briefing and venue discovery, magistrate Judge Roy Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (R&R) that suggested denying Amazon's motion.
Amazon later filed objections to the R&R, which the court has now addressed.
One of Amazon's objections centred on the R&R's citation of legal standards, which the e-commerce giant argued had applied an incorrect standard.
The court, however, clarified that once a response is filed, it may then consider the matter.
After examining Amazon's arguments, the court found that the report used the right standards and considered the evidence correctly.
Another issue highlighted by Amazon was the use of forum selection clauses in two contracts, namely a non-disclosure agreement signed in 2016 and a master purchase agreement that followed two years later.
Amazon believed these clauses should dictate the case's location and lead to a transfer.
However, the court disagreed, stating that since there were no contract breach claims or other significant aspects related to these agreements, the broad application of these clauses was unnecessary.
Regarding the transfer request, Amazon argued that the R&R didn’t properly assess certain factors such as the location of witnesses and the availability of compulsory process.
Amazon argued that the court did not give enough consideration to certain categories of employees or the transferability of physical documents.
However, the court found that the report’s analysis was sound and appropriately weighted these factors against transfer.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's R&R, concluding that Amazon's objections failed to demonstrate any errors in the recommendation.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
