Oklahoma High Court Rejects “Stream of Commerce” Doctrine as Basis for Specific Jurisdiction

Isaac-05115Guest Commentary

By Gary Isaac, Counsel in Mayer Brown LLP’s Litigation department. He has extensive experience litigating personal jurisdiction issues.

In the past several years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued several decisions significantly limiting the assertion of personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants.1 However, it has been left to the lower state and federal courts to apply the principles delineated by the Supreme Court. One recent personal jurisdiction decision of note is Montgomery v. Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 414 P.3d 824 (Okl. 2018), which concluded that in the wake of Walden and Bristol-Myers Squibb (“BMS”), the “stream of commerce” doctrine is no longer a viable basis for specific jurisdiction. Continue reading “Oklahoma High Court Rejects “Stream of Commerce” Doctrine as Basis for Specific Jurisdiction”

District Courts Divide over Application of “Bristol-Myers Squibb” Decision to Class Actions

troyer_brian_240x470Guest Commentary

By Brian A. Troyer, a Partner with Thompson Hine LLP in its Cleveland, OH office.

In a September 8, 2017 Washington Legal Foundation Legal Backgrounder on Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), I noted that it would remain to be determined how courts would apply it to nationwide and multistate class actions. An Illinois federal court recently became the latest to confront this issue, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the defendant with respect to claims of nonresident class members, disagreeing with courts in California and Louisiana. The result is a clear split among district courts on the question, and the issue is likely to be brought to the U.S. Supreme Court if courts of appeal also reach opposite conclusions on such a fundamental question. Continue reading “District Courts Divide over Application of “Bristol-Myers Squibb” Decision to Class Actions”

Change in Law of Patent Venue May Not Be Get Out of Texas Card

Kaminski_Jeffri_LRFeatured Expert Contributor, Intellectual Property—Patents

Jeffri A. Kaminski, Venable LLP

In In re: Micron Technology, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit resolved a disagreement among various district courts as to when the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC has changed patent venue law.  The Federal Circuit ruled the law had changed, but each federal district court maintains discretion to apply the new rule in accordance with each court’s respective procedures. Continue reading “Change in Law of Patent Venue May Not Be Get Out of Texas Card”

Eastern District of Texas Refuses to Accept Supreme Court’s Patent-Venue Ruling

hydraBy Ryley Bennett, a 2017 Judge K.K. Legett Fellow at Washington Legal Foundation who will be entering her third year at Texas Tech University School of Law in the fall.

The US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) is known as one of the federal judiciary’s most patent-plaintiff-friendly districts. With TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Groups Brand LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), the US Supreme Court recently cut off one avenue for filing patent-infringement claims there. It ruled in that patent-infringement lawsuits may be brought only in the infringer’s home state or else in a federal district where it maintains a regular place of business. But like the resilient, mythical Hydra, when one head is cut off, more grow back. In a recent decision, Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap developed a broadly-sweeping four-factor “totality” test seemingly aimed at keeping patent-infringement suits in his jurisdiction. Continue reading “Eastern District of Texas Refuses to Accept Supreme Court’s Patent-Venue Ruling”

US-Based Tech Companies Subject to Worldwide Jurisdiction as Judicial Comity Takes a Back Seat

Guest Commentary

moinBy Moin A. Yahya, Vice Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Law.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) recent decision in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. is the latest in non-American courts asserting their jurisdiction over American companies’ global operations using the pretext of the Internet.  The case arose as a dispute between two companies—one a manufacturer of networking devices and the other its distributor.  The distributor was accused of passing off its own competing products as the manufacturer’s, which led the manufacturer to sue the distributor.  It obtained an order requiring the distributor to cease distributing the manufacturer’s products.  The distributor did not comply, left Canada, and did not appear in subsequent proceedings.  The distributor, however, continued to advertise itself as a seller of the manufacturer’s products on several non-Canadian websites.  Continue reading “US-Based Tech Companies Subject to Worldwide Jurisdiction as Judicial Comity Takes a Back Seat”

Supreme Court Alters Patent Venue Landscape: Eastern District Texas No Longer the Heartland of Patent Litigation

Kaminski_Jeffri_LRFeatured Expert Contributor – Intellectual Property (Patents)

Jeffri A. Kaminski, Partner, Venable LLP, with William A. Hector, Associate, Venable LLP.

The US Supreme Court issued its decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC altering the landscape of where patent owners may file patent infringement cases.  Previously, these cases could be filed in essentially any jurisdiction, allowing patent owners to select the forum of their choice.  TC Heartland  now requires that there be some connection between the accused infringer and the jurisdiction where suit is filed.  The Court ruled unanimously that “a domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.”  Continue reading “Supreme Court Alters Patent Venue Landscape: Eastern District Texas No Longer the Heartland of Patent Litigation”

With the Supreme Court Poised to Address Personal Jurisdiction Again, State High Courts Reject Attempts to Evade “Daimler v. Bauman”

kobakGilletteingraham

Guest Commentary

By Sara Kobak, W. Michael Gillette, and Aukjen Ingraham, Shareholders with Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C. in Portland, OR.

Since the US Supreme Court clarified the due-process limits on the exercise of general or all-purpose jurisdiction in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014), plaintiffs have reached for new arguments to support the exercise of general jurisdiction over corporate defendants in forums where the defendants cannot fairly be considered “at home.” With notable exceptions—including the decisions at issue in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, Case No. 16-466, and Tyrell v. BNSF Railway Co., Case No. 16-405, both scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court on April 25, 2017—the majority of lower courts have rejected these attempts to evade Daimler and its due-process requirements. The most recent examples of decisions enforcing Daimler come from the high courts of Oregon and Missouri, with the Washington Legal Foundation submitting an amicus brief in the Oregon case. Continue reading “With the Supreme Court Poised to Address Personal Jurisdiction Again, State High Courts Reject Attempts to Evade “Daimler v. Bauman””