The District Court granted Amazon’s motion with respect to allegations involving use of S3, barring Patent Owner from asserting any infringement claim against Amazon or its customer, including Petitioner Entities, based on use of S3.
In our Decision, we also noted that the District Court’s articulation “is very similar, if not identical, to the third Taylor category (adequate representation by the named party), where nonparty preclusion based on a privity relationship may be found.” Dec. 20.
Therefore, our Decision denying the Petition is consistent with Taylor’s framework and grounded in due process, finding Amazon is a privy of several Petitioner Entities under Taylor’s third category.
In a related argument, Requesters argue that our Decision runs counter to Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC, 926 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2019), because we only evaluated whether privity existed in the past (at the time of the District Court’s summary judgment ruling) and did not address the issue of privity in the context of changing circumstances (the District Court’s dismissal of Patent Owner’s claims related to Amazon’s S3 product).
Patent 7,802,310 B2 Manhattan Bank and Manning (and Petitioner Entities’ arguments regarding those cases) and concluded that they were inapposite because the circumstances giving rise to privity have not changed.