Broomall Industries, Inc. v. Data Design Logic Systems, Inc.
229 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 38, 54 U.S.L.W. 2507, 786 F.2d 401 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A debtor's discharge of a pre-confirmation debt in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding is ineffective against a known creditor who did not receive formal notice of the bankruptcy. The constitutional requirement of due process takes precedence over the discharge provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, and a debtor's subjective belief that a known creditor abandoned its claim does not excuse the failure to provide notice.
Facts:
- Starting in September 1976, Broomall Industries, Inc. (Broomall) accused Logic Systems, Inc. (Logic Systems) of patent infringement through a series of letters.
- Logic Systems denied infringement but offered to purchase a license to avoid litigation, though negotiations failed.
- On March 22, 1977, Broomall sent Logic Systems a proposed complaint for patent infringement, and Logic Systems responded by reiterating its non-infringement position.
- Broomall then decided to sue another alleged infringer, Nicolet Instrument Corporation, first, intending to pursue Logic Systems later, as permitted by the 6-year statute of limitations for patent damages.
- On May 7, 1980, while Broomall's suit against Nicolet was pending, Logic Systems filed a petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization.
- Logic Systems did not list Broomall as a creditor in its bankruptcy filings.
- On July 29, 1981, the bankruptcy court confirmed Logic Systems' reorganization plan, under which it merged into a new company, Data Design Logic Systems, Inc. (Data Design).
Procedural Posture:
- Broomall commenced a patent infringement action against Data Design, as successor to Logic Systems, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
- Data Design filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that Broomall's claim was discharged by the bankruptcy court's confirmation of Logic Systems' reorganization plan.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Data Design.
- The remainder of Broomall's suit was dismissed without prejudice, making the partial summary judgment a final, appealable judgment.
- Broomall (Appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the confirmation of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan discharge a patent infringement claim held by a known creditor who was not given formal notice of the bankruptcy proceedings?
Opinions:
Majority - Cowen, Senior Circuit Judge
No. The confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan does not discharge a claim if the debtor knew of the claim but failed to provide the creditor with formal notice of the bankruptcy proceedings. Fifth Amendment due process considerations, which require notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of an action, override the discharge provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Logic Systems had knowledge of Broomall's claim from the pre-bankruptcy correspondence, making Broomall a known creditor entitled to formal notice. A debtor's subjective belief that a creditor abandoned its claim, based on the creditor's silence or inaction, does not negate the debtor's duty to provide notice. Furthermore, even if a creditor has actual knowledge of the bankruptcy, they are still entitled to formal notice before their claim can be discharged.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the primacy of constitutional due process over statutory bankruptcy discharge provisions. It clarifies that a debtor's duty to provide notice is not excused by a creditor's period of inaction, especially when a statute of limitations provides a lengthy period to file suit. The ruling places a firm burden on debtors to notify all parties they know have potential claims, thereby protecting creditors from having their rights extinguished without an opportunity to be heard. This precedent makes it difficult for debtors to use a creditor's litigation strategy or silence as a justification for omitting them from bankruptcy schedules.
