• CAFC discusses personal jurisdiction in New World case

    The outcome was “no personal jurisdiction”:

    New World International, Inc., and National Auto
    Parts, Inc., (collectively, “New World”) appeal from a final
    decision by the United States District Court for the
    Northern District of Texas dismissing New World’s declaratory
    judgment complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction
    over defendant-appellee Ford Global Technologies,
    LLC (“FGTL”). We affirm.

    As to the law:

    “Personal jurisdiction is a question of law that we review
    de novo.” Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech.
    Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We review the
    pleadings and other submitted evidence in the light most
    favorable to New World. Id. at 1017. Because the complaint
    involves issues of patent infringement and validity,
    we apply Federal Circuit law to the jurisdictional issue.
    Id. at 1016.


    For personal jurisdiction, the nonresident defendant
    must have “certain minimum contacts with [the forum]
    such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend
    ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’”
    Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
    For minimum contacts in the context of specific jurisdiction,
    the plaintiff must show that the defendant “has
    purposefully directed his activities at residents of the
    forum, and [that] the litigation results from alleged
    injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.”
    Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985);
    see also id. at 475 & n.18. If those minimum contacts are
    sufficient, the defendant may point to other factors “to
    determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction
    would comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice.’”
    Id. at 476. This court has articulated those requirements
    in the form of a three-part test: “(1) whether the defendant
    ‘purposefully directed’ its activities at residents of the
    forum; (2) whether the claim ‘arises out of or relates to’
    the defendant’s activities with the forum; and (3) whether
    assertion of personal jurisdiction is ‘reasonable and fair.’”
    Inamed Corp. v. Kuzmak, 249 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
    Under the first two parts of the test, as applied in the
    patent context, the question is what minimum contacts
    are necessary to establish personal jurisdiction over a
    nonresident defendant for a declaratory judgment of
    noninfringement or invalidity of a patent.


    Under the third part of the test, however,
    this court has held that it is improper to predicate
    personal jurisdiction on the act of sending ordinary cease
    and desist letters into a forum, without more. Red Wing
    Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355,
    1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (concluding that “[p]rinciples of
    fair play and substantial justice afford a patentee sufficient
    latitude to inform others of its patent rights without
    subjecting itself to jurisdiction in a foreign forum”); see
    also, e.g., Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc., 638 F.3d
    785, 789 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v.
    Metabolite Labs., Inc., 444 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
    2006); Genetic Implant Sys., Inc. v. Core-Vent Corp., 123
    F.3d 1455, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    While the act of sending cease and desist letters is insufficient
    by itself to trigger a finding of personal jurisdiction,
    other activities by the defendant, in conjunction with
    cease and desist letters, may be sufficient. One such
    activity that this court has recognized may meet the
    minimum contacts requirement is the grant of an exclusive
    license to a licensee that resides or regularly does
    business in the forum. Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten
    Int’l Co., 552 F.3d 1324, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also,
    e.g., Breckenridge, 444 F.3d at 1366

    To be sure, the mere existence of an exclusive license
    does not support a finding of specific jurisdiction. For
    example, a license that establishes no relationship between
    a patent holder and a licensee beyond the payment
    and receipt of royalty income is not sufficient, because a
    declaratory judgment action does not typically “arise from
    or relate to” a patent holder’s efforts to license or commercialize
    its patent. Avocent, 552 F.3d at 1336; see also
    Radio Sys. Corp., 638 F.3d at 789-90.


    What matters, then, is whether the agreement between
    the patent holder and the exclusive licensee imposes
    an obligation on the patent holder to enforce or defend
    the patent on behalf of the licensee that is engaged in
    exploiting the patent rights in the forum state. That
    question is important because a patent holder’s undertaking
    of such continuing enforcement obligations to a party
    that does business in the forum may qualify as purposeful
    availment by the defendant of the privilege of conducting
    activities within the forum state. See Burger King, 471
    U.S. at 479-80; Perdue Foods LLC v. BRF S.A., 814 F.3d
    185, 191 (4th Cir. 2016) (“[I]mplicit in the Supreme
    Court’s distinction between a contract—which cannot, by
    itself, establish purposeful availment—and a contract
    with continuing obligations—which ‘manifestly’ constitutes
    purposeful availment—is the assumption that the
    continuing obligations strengthen a defendant’s contacts
    with the plaintiff’s forum.”) (quoting Burger King, 471
    U.S. at 476).

    The arguments of New World are rejected:

    New World argues that under the precedents discussed
    above, FGTL’s license with LKQ creates the basis
    for a finding of specific personal jurisdiction because it
    imposes continuing obligations on FGTL by virtue of its
    character as an exclusive license—i.e., by preventing
    FGTL from granting a license to New World. New World
    also points to the indemnification and enforcement provisions
    as independently sufficient bases for specific jurisdiction.
    Those arguments are not persuasive.


    New World has not provided a persuasive reason to
    interpret the provision differently. Its only argument,
    made in a footnote, is that “reasonableness” is an enforceable
    standard under Michigan law, which governs the
    interpretation of the license agreement. But New World
    does not explain how the interpretation of the agreement
    under Michigan law would conflict with FGTL’s interpretation.


    In sum, under the license agreement, FGTL retains
    nearly complete control over the patent enforcement
    decision. New World has not shown that the obligations
    contemplated in the license have resulted in an undertaking
    by FGTL to enforce or defend the patents with LKQ.
    Therefore, although the license to the licensee doing
    business in the forum is exclusive, the license does not
    impose a sufficient obligation on the patent holder regarding
    the enforcement of the patent rights to subject the
    patent holder to specific jurisdiction there. Nor has New
    World pointed to any additional activities in the forum
    beyond the license that would give rise to specific jurisdiction.
    See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 480 (finding specific
    jurisdiction in Florida because “the ‘quality and nature’ of
    [the defendant’s] relationship to the company in Florida
    can in no sense be viewed as ‘random,’ ‘fortuitous,’ or

    See NEW WORLD INTERNATIONAL vs. Ford Global,

    Continue Reading ...
  • Recognizing fake documents

    It’s June in Florida. Temperatures in Orlando on June 9 will be in the 80s, with a thunderstorm predicted by 5pm.Fifty-two years ago, on March 25, 1965, Perry Mason solved a case by recognizing that a postcard saying there was pleasant weather in Flor…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Artificial Intelligence: No Clear Roadmap For The Future

    “Artificial intelligence is as a weapon” and we have to deal with it “as we deal with other weapons,” Cindy Smith, director of the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI), said during a panel discussion at an artificial intelligence summit in Geneva this week. The panel discussion focused on preparing a roadmap to ensure that artificial intelligence develops in “a safe, responsible and, an ethical manner” that benefits all the different segments of our society.

    Continue Reading ...
  • CAFC: Arbitration of Intellectual Property Claims Not Covered by Agreement

    The Court determined that the scope of the arbitration provision did not cover the intellectual property claims before the district court because the arbitration provision only covered the obligations established by the Agreement (the promotion of the plaintiff’s products).

    The post CAFC: Arbitration of Intellectual Property Claims Not Covered by Agreement appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Federal Circuit Reverses and Remands District Court’s Refusal to Award Attorney Fees

    Rothschild sued ADS for patent infringement of Rothschild’s patent related to a home security system. The district court granted Rothschild’s motion to dismiss and denied ADS’s cross-motion for attorney fees, finding that Rothschild did not engage in conduct sufficient to make the action exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285. ADS appealed, and the Court reversed and remanded. The Court found that the district court abused its discretion citing three reasons.

    The post Federal Circuit Reverses…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Federal Circuit Reverses Grant of Attorney Fees; Case Not Exceptional Under 35 U.S.C. § 285

    In the Federal Circuit case of Checkpoint Systems v. All-Tag Sec, The Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in finding this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and it reversed its award of attorney fees to the defendants. The record showed that the plaintiff’s charge of infringement was reasonable and the litigation was not abusive or brought in bad faith.

    The post Federal Circuit Reverses Grant of Attorney Fees; Case Not Exceptional Under 35 U.S.C. § 285 appeared first on…

    Continue Reading ...
  • BASICALLY / 基本的に


    BASICALLY / 基本的に


    $$ Basically, inside the compound document, a structure analogous to a file and directory structure is provided. / 基本的には、複合ドキュメントの内側では、ファイル及びディレクトリ構造に類似した構造が準備される。(USP6523174)

    $$ Basically, highly turbulent flows are created in the rearward end of the casing 11, which provides a mixing chamber of significant length between the nozzles 18, 20 and the outlet end of the flame holder 30. / 基本的にバーナーケース11の後端の、ノズル18、20と保炎器30の出口端部との間に形成された著しく長い混合室に高度の乱流が発生する。(USP6250913)

    $$ Up-link slots basically contain two different types of data packet. / 上りリンクのスロットは、基本的に2つの異なるデータパケットタイプを含む。(USP6044086)

    $$ It is basically an overlay connectionless network, based on the Internet Protocol, which shares the network of Base Sites and Controllers 22, 23 with the GSM network 24, 25, 28. / GPRSは基本的にインターネットプロトコルに基づくオーバーレイ無接続ネットワークであり、ベースサイトおよび制御装置22、23のネットワークをGSMネットワーク24、25、28と共有する。(USP6584098)

    $$ The circulator 18 is basically a one-way valve which allows power from the power source 10 to reach the applicator 16 but stops any reflected power reaching the power source. / サーキュレーター18は基本的に一方向弁であり、電源10からの電力がアプリケーター16に達するようにするが、電源に達する反射電力を妨げる。(USP01004075)

    $$ The flame holder 30 defines basically annular jets from which streams of mixed fuel and air issue. / 保炎器30には、混合された燃料と空気が流れ出る基本的には円環状の吐出孔が設けられている。(USP6250913)

    $$ The STPMP basically provides the decision making for packet transfer. / STPMPは、基本的に、パケット転送の意志決定を行なう。(USP02018462)

    $$ The gate 20 is formed of wire basically bent double. (USP02050032)

    $$ Chip 200 is basically the same in construction as chip 61 of FIG. 9. (USP01022495)


    Continue Reading ...