In This Issue:

- I. Traditional Use of General Jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman Cases

- II. Amenability to General Jurisdiction May Be Waning

- III. Freedom from Jurisdiction Could Be An Advantage

- IV. Early District Court Decisions Push Back

..A. Judge Sleet & Judge Gilstrap Find Specific Jurisdiction Based on Notice Letter

..B. Judge Stark Revives General Jurisdiction and Expands Specific Jurisdiction

- V. Evolving Area of the Law

- For More Information

- Excerpt from I. Traditional Use of General Jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman Cases:

The first post-Daimler decisions suggest district courts will rely on new theories of general and specific jurisdiction to exercise personal jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman cases. Traditionally, district courts exercised personal jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman cases based on theories of general jurisdiction because there was no “real” act of infringement in any district (infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) being so-called “imaginary”). Tending to find that such “acts” of infringement did not really “occur” anywhere, Courts instead relied on general jurisdiction to exercise power over a party. See, e.g., Eli Lilly v. Sicor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 06-cv-238, 2007 WL 1245882 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 27, 2007).