## Facts

- Photopaint Technologies, LLC and Smartlens Corporation entered a 1997 license agreement requiring arbitration of disputes under AAA rules.
- A dispute was submitted to AAA arbitration; the arbitrator issued an interim award largely favoring Photopaint and later signed a final award on May 26, 2000.
- The final award made the license agreement “voidable,” allowed either party to rescind within 30 days of receipt of the award, and required Smartlens to pay Photopaint an amount dependent on which party rescinded first.
- Although the arbitrator promptly transmitted the final award to the AAA, the AAA did not deliver it to the parties until October 3, 2000.
- The parties negotiated settlement and executed multiple agreements extending the rescission deadline and extending “any other applicable deadlines” (later phrased as time to rescind “or otherwise”), continuing through July 2001.
- After negotiations failed, Photopaint elected rescission and demanded payment; Smartlens refused.
- Photopaint petitioned in federal district court to confirm the award under FAA § 9; Smartlens sought summary judgment, arguing the petition was untimely because it was filed more than one year after the award was “made” (signed).
- The district court held FAA § 9 imposes a one-year statute of limitations and dismissed the confirmation petition as time-barred; Photopaint appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether 9 U.S.C. § 9 imposes a one-year statute of limitations on applications to confirm an arbitration award.
2. If § 9 imposes a one-year limitations period, whether equitable relief (including tolling or estoppel) can prevent dismissal where delivery of the award was delayed and the parties executed tolling/extension agreements.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit held that FAA § 9 imposes a one-year statute of limitations for confirmation petitions.
- The court treated the award as “made” when signed by the arbitrator, not when later delivered to the parties.
- The court held the one-year limitations period is subject to equitable relief and that Photopaint was entitled to such relief under the circumstances.
- The judgment granting summary judgment to Smartlens and denying confirmation was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- The phrase in FAA § 9 permitting a party to apply for confirmation “at any time within one year after the award is made” functions as a statute of limitations, not merely a permissive filing period.
- FAA timing provisions should be read as part of a coordinated post-award scheme, including short deadlines for vacatur or modification and a defined period for confirmation.
- Federal statutory limitations periods are generally subject to equitable tolling or estoppel absent a clear congressional command to the contrary; the § 9 period is not treated as strictly jurisdictional.
- Equitable relief may be warranted where nonparty institutional delay in delivering the award reduces the practical opportunity to seek judicial confirmation and where the parties’ written extensions reasonably suspend related deadlines.
- A party may be estopped from asserting the § 9 time bar when its conduct during negotiations and extensions is inconsistent with later claiming untimeliness.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit interpreted FAA § 9 as imposing a one-year deadline to seek judicial confirmation of an arbitration award, but held that equitable tolling or estoppel can preserve a late-filed confirmation petition when delivery delays and mutual tolling agreements make strict enforcement inequitable.


Photopaint Techs., LLC v. Smartlens Corp., 335 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2003)