Personal jurisdiction is one of those basic concepts in civil procedure that evokes strong memories in most lawyers, of their first year in law school, cases like International Shoe, Burger King, Helicopteros, and World-Wide...more
A patentee may establish “minimum contacts” in a forum, thus subjecting itself to specific personal jurisdiction, by sending a cease and desist letter to the forum. Precedent concerning this issue has been evolving....more
Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in the IPR Context - In Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1525, 2017-1577, the Federal Circuit held that the plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Newman, Wallach, and Stoll. Appeal from the District Court of the Northern District of Texas. Summary: There is no generalized rule that sending letters alleging patent infringement...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Summary: In the context of a suit for a declaration of non-infringement and...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with a district court that it lacked personal jurisdiction over a patent owner/declaratory judgment defendant where the defendant’s only contacts with the forum were the...more
On Monday, January 9, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied, without comment, Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ petition for certiorari to reverse an opinion by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed a broad scope of...more
Federal Circuit Holds That Using A Contract Manufacturer Does Not Trigger An On-Sale Bar - In The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2014-1469, -1504, the Federal Circuit, en banc, held that the patentee’s deal...more
In Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) and intentions to market the product across the United States–including in the...more
The disputed technology is a generic rivastigmine patch. Defendant is a New Jersey corporation with a principal place of business in Vermont. Only specific jurisdiction is at issue since it is not “at home” in Delaware. ...more