Introduction: A Patent Dispute with Amazon Implications

The e-commerce world is changing fast, and few tools match the potential of Amazon’s APEX (Amazon Patent Evaluation Express) program to transform patent enforcement. But a recent legal tangle, SnapPower, Inc., v. Lighting Defense Group, LLC raises serious questions about jurisdiction, which determines where a lawsuit can be filed. The decision in this case should cause Amazon sellers to think more carefully about the implications of jurisdiction before initiating the APEX program.

Given that the U.S. Supreme Court recently denied certiorari, thus leaving the Federal Circuit’s ruling in place. This is significant for sellers who use the APEX process and also for patent holders who are attempting to enforce their rights via Amazon.

Background: What Sparked the Dispute?

Lighting Defense Group (LDG), a Delaware company, holds the U.S. Patent No. 8,668,347 that covers technology used in electrical outlet covers. LDG believed that its patent was being infringed by SnapPower (also known as SnapRays), which was selling their own outlet covers on Amazon. So in order to stop the alleged infringement, in May of 2022, LDG filed an APEX complaint against a Utah-based SnapRays.

What is APEX?

APEX lets patent holders ask a neutral evaluator to assess the purported patent infringement by sellers on the Amazon platform. If they find that infringement is occurring, Amazon may take down the purportedly infringing listings.

Once APEX is initiated by the complainant, the seller of the allegedly infringing product has three choices:

1. Participate in the APEX program to allow the neutral third party to assess the infringement claim
2. Deal directly with the patent owner to resolve the issue before entering the APEX process, or
3. Request a declaratory judgment in federal court, asking the court for a finding of non-infringement of any patents held by the complainant.

Should the seller remain inactive for three weeks, by not taking action, the product listings will be removed automatically by Amazon.

So SnapPower filed a declaratory judgment action in the US District Court in Utah, seeking a finding that SnapPower did not infringe LDG’s patent. During the litigation, LDG filed a motion to dismiss SnapPower’s Utah declaratory judgment filing, alleging that there is no personal jurisdiction over LDG in Utah. The Utah district court granted LDG’s motion to dismiss, agreeing that there was no personal jurisdiction over LDG in Utah because LDG was incorporated in Delaware and also had their principal place of business in Arizona.

SnapPower appealed the Utah District Court’s finding to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit did reverse the decision findings as described below. SnapRays, dba SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Grp., 100 F.4^th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2024).

Jurisdictional Fight: Does an APEX Complaint Open the Door to Federal Lawsuits?

The declaratory judgment filing removes APEX’s ability to determine the case, and instead brings it to a court where the seller can find jurisdiction. So a significant question before the Federal Circuit: Was LDG’s filing of APEX the cause to be sued in Utah, i.e. have personal jurisdiction in Utah?

• Ruling of the Utah District Court: At first, the Utah court said no. To just file an APEX complaint did not make enough of a connection with Utah for there to be any kind of legal jurisdiction.
• Federal Circuit’s Reversal: In reversing the decision on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that LDG had purposefully directed its enforcement activities at SnapPower in Utah. This was done especially by triggering the potential removal of its listings on Amazon and therefore potentially affecting SnapPower’s sales and activities in Utah.

The legal peril that patent owners face when starting APEX proceedings just got a lot bigger. This recent decision indicates that sending an Amazon program takedown notice could lead to being served with a lawsuit in the accused seller’s home court.

SCOTUS Denies Cert: What It Means

On April 1, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, allowing the Federal Circuit’s decision to stand. This preserves a strong precedent that could change how APEX is applied in future legal fights.

Filing a complaint against an accused seller of a patented product may permit that seller to assert the patent holder is subject to personal jurisdiction in the seller’s home state, even when the patent holder has no other business in that state.

What This Means for Amazon Sellers Using APEX

The SnapPower ruling is a double-edged sword for Amazon sellers.

Pros:

• APEX may now give sellers accused of patent infringement greater power to push back against their accusers via litigation in their home jurisdiction.
• APEX offers a new way to deter overreaching or frivolous patent complaints.

Cons:

• APEX could make patent owners hesitate to enforce their patents if they expect to be sued in forums seen as unfavorable.
• This wouldn’t matter if APEX were rare; but it’s not, as the following section discusses.

Strategic Considerations for Sellers and Patent Holders

If you are selling on Amazon,

• Record every interaction related to APEX disputes.
• Confer with intellectual property legal experts before answering any complaints regarding APEX.
• Weigh the pros and cons of whether seeking a DJ in your jurisdiction is a smart maneuver.

If you are someone who holds a patent:

• Assess the personal jurisdiction risk before starting APEX.
• If your target is out of state, consider filing a patent infringement action in district court first before they have an opportunity to file a DJ in their home state.

Conclusion: APEX Is No Longer a One-Way Street

The SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group decision introduces another layer of complexity into Amazon’s APEX program. The aim of the APEX program still is to work fast and provide a streamlined resolution. But the jurisdictional consequences of using APEX now may potentially carry a patent owner from one side of the United States to the other.

Both Amazon sellers and patent owners need to base their IP enforcement on a complete understanding of the legal landscape. That means considering all the options, including the platform’s own IP mechanisms, for dealing with marketplace counterfeits and copycats.

Cohen IP