les Nouvelles
Linked InFacebookYouTubeTwitter

les Nouvelles - September 2009


Recent U.S. Decisions And Developments Affecting Licensing - September 2009

Brian Brunsvold

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Attorney, Washington, D.C., USA

John C. Paul

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Attorney, Washington, D.C., USA

ATTENDING U.S. TRADE SHOWS CAN SUBJECT A FOREIGN COMPANY TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE U.S. COURT AT THAT LOCATION

To avoid an unfair result or undue burden on defendants, the law requires a sufficient connection between a defendant and the location of a court before it will require a defendant to defend against a lawsuit in that court. In particular, courts must have either “general jurisdiction” or “specific jurisdiction” over a defendant to hear a case involving that defendant. “General jurisdiction” exists when the defendant maintains “systematic and continuous” activities in the state where the court sits, like maintaining a personal residence or operating a business. Defendants subject to general jurisdiction may be sued for any activity in that state, regardless of whether the activity giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in that particular court’s state or not. “Specific jurisdiction” exists when the activity giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in the state where the court sits.

In Synthes (U.S.A.) v. G.M. Dos Reis Jr. Ind. Com. De Equip. Medico, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a Brazilian company’s attendance and display of infringing products at international trade shows in the United States subjected the company to specific jurisdiction for patent infringement in the district court located in the state where the trade show was held.

Read the Full Article:

Full articles are available only to LESI Members. Please login to view the PDF of this Les Nouvelles Article. 

Not an LESI member? Find out how to join your regional LES society and gain access to all that your LES society and LESI has to offer.