By 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
By 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
Featured 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
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
By Eric D. Miller, Partner, Perkins Coie LLP*
A pending petition for a writ of certiorari presents the United States Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify whether a state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant based solely on the defendant’s sale of components to third parties who incorporate those parts into finished products that are then sold in the forum State.
That question has divided the lower courts since Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987). In that case, Asahi, a Japanese manufacturer, had delivered tire-valve assemblies to a Taiwanese tire manufacturer that sold tires throughout the world, including in California. After a California resident was injured in an accident caused by a defective valve, he sued Asahi in California state court. The Supreme Court held that Asahi was not subject to personal jurisdiction in California, but no rationale commanded a majority of the Court. Justice O’Connor, writing for four justices, concluded that the connection between the defendant and the forum state necessary to establish specific personal jurisdiction “must come about by an action of the defendant purposefully directed toward the forum state.” In her view, placing a product “into the stream of commerce, without more,” is not such an act. Justice Brennan, on the other hand, wrote for four justices who believed that placement of goods into the stream of commerce, with the knowledge that they will ultimately be sold in a state, can be sufficient for jurisdiction in that state. Continue reading
Prior to the US Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, general jurisdiction existed over a business defendant in any state where it was incorporated, had its principal place of business, or its contacts were so “continuous and systematic” as to render them essentially at home in the forum state. Under this expansive interpretation, corporations could be subject to lawsuits in unpredictable and often remote jurisdictions.
Daimler significantly narrowed the reach of general jurisdiction by holding that because Daimler and MBUSA were neither incorporated nor had their principal place of business in California, Daimler’s contacts with California were not enough to render it at home in the state. Continue reading
Marissa S. Ronk, an Associate with Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP*
The Colorado Supreme Court recently granted Ford Motor Co. “extraordinary relief” in overturning a trial court’s finding of general jurisdiction over Ford in Colorado. Magill v. Ford.
In 2013, Plaintiff John Scott Magill was driving a Ford vehicle when he was hit by another Colorado resident. In 2015, Mr. Magill and his wife filed a lawsuit in Colorado against the Colorado driver and Ford to recover for their injuries. Ford moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Ford is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Dearborn, Michigan. The company argued that it is not subject to general jurisdiction in Colorado because it is not “at home” there, as required under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Daimler AG v. Bauman. Ford also argued it was not subject to specific jurisdiction in Colorado because the car accident did not arise out of its contacts with Colorado. Continue reading