Opinion ID: 210710
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: CE and OSRAM are competitors in the field of white light emitting diode (“white LED”) technology. OSRAM is the owner or assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,066,861, 6,245,259, 6,277,301, 6,576,930, 6,592,780, 6,613,247, and 6,812,500, all directed to white LED technology. On January 18, 2005, CE filed an action against OSRAM for a declaratory judgment that its white LEDs did not infringe upon OSRAM’s patents, or that the patents were invalid. On April 27, 2005, OSRAM filed a motion to dismiss the DJ action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In its motion, OSRAM stated that “[i]n response to Citizen’s provoking a fight by filing this surprise declaratory judgment action, OSRAM has taken action to protect its patent rights in Europe.” Specifically, on March 14, 2005, OSRAM filed a patent infringement case against CE in Germany on related foreign patents directed to white LED technology. On July 14, 2005, the district court ruled in favor of OSRAM, dismissing CE’s DJ action. Citizen I, 377 F. Supp. 2d at 157. The district court held that CE failed to prove that there was an “actual controversy” under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), on January 18, 2005, the time the suit was filed. While noting that OSRAM had filed suit in Germany against CE, the district court nonetheless found it to be irrelevant since this event occurred after the filing of CE’s complaint. Citizen I, 377 F. Supp. 2d at 155 n.7. CE did not appeal the district court’s decision. 2006-1211 2 On August 2, 2005, CE filed a second DJ action against OSRAM. 1 To support its allegation of an “actual controversy,” CE reiterated the events allegedly leading to an “actual controversy” in its first complaint and listed the following “new” facts for consideration by the district court: (1) that on May 2, 2005, OSRAM issued a report on its website describing the action against CE in Germany; and (2) also on May 2, 2005, OSRAM issued a press release mentioning action taken by OSRAM in the International Trade Commission pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1940 seeking to exclude from entry into the U.S. certain white LEDs manufactured, imported, or sold by another company, Dominant Semiconductors, and stating, “Our objective in taking legal action against Citizen and issuing warnings to Dominant is to prevent unauthorized use of our technology.” In response to the second DJ complaint, OSRAM again filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the new facts in the second complaint were barred from consideration by the district court under the principles of res judicata. CE filed an amended complaint on November 11, 2005, adding the fact that OSRAM’s German complaint was formally served on CE under the Hague Convention on September 28, 2005. On December 20, 2005, the district court ruled in favor of OSRAM and dismissed CE’s second DJ action. In its opinion, the district court first acknowledged that the case presented a “novel issue of whether jurisdictional facts that occurred after plaintiff filed its first suit but prior to the Court’s dismissal of that suit may be relied on in a second suit to cure the jurisdictional defect.” Citizen II, slip op. at 3. Relying on the decisions 1 CE’s second DJ action did not include U.S. Patent No. 6,812,500. 2006-1211 3 made by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Dozier v. Ford Motor Co., 702 F.2d 1189, 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1983) and GAF Corp. v. United States, 818 F.2d 901, 912-13 (D.C. Cir. 1987), the district court held that CE was estopped under the doctrine of res judicata from relying on events prior to July 14, 2005—the dismissal date of CE’s first DJ action—as evidence of an “actual controversy.” Since the district court refused to consider any facts known prior to its dismissal of the first DJ action, the only event that it considered with regard to the second DJ action was service of process, which the court found to be insufficient to cure the jurisdictional defect. Citizen II, slip op. at 8. This appeal followed. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).