Category Archives: Jurisdiction

DC Hatch-Waxman decision finding improper venue and failure to state a claim affirmed

Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. Docket No. 2021-1154 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1154.OPINION.11-5-2021_1860406.pdf) PROST, CHEN, HUGHES November 5, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC finding of improper venue and failure to state a claim affirmed. Summary:  Celgene sued Mylan for infringement under the … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Jurisdiction, Venue | Leave a comment

DC finding of no personal jurisdiction reversed due to TX-based PerDiemCo’s communications with Trimble in California

Trimble Inc. et al. PerDiemCo LLC Docket No. 2019-2164 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2164.OPINION.5-12-2021_1776598.pdf) NEWMAN, DYK, HUGHES May 12, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC finding of no personal jurisdiction reversed and remanded (e.g., PerDiemCo “exchanged twenty-two communications with Trimble in California over a period of … Continue reading

Posted in Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

DC finding of personal jurisdiction over foreign entities and finding genetic testing claims ineligible under 101 affirmed

Genetic Vet. Sciences, Inc. (“PPG”) v. Laboklin GmbH & Co., KG, The University of Berlin Docket No. 2018-2056 WALLACH, HUGHES, STOLL August 9, 2019 Brief Summary: DC finding of personal jurisdiction over foreign university and its foreign licensee affirmed; finding … Continue reading

Posted in Jurisdiction, Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. et al. (JH) v. Plano Encryption Technologies LLC (PET)

Docket No. 2016-2700 NEWMAN, WALLACH, STOLL December 7, 2018 Brief summary: DC dismissal of JH’s DJ action against reversed and remanded since PET’s letters to the Banks charging infringement established minimum contacts in the ND TX and PET did not … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm. Int. Ltd. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2707, -2708 PROST, LOURIE, HUGHES April 13, 2018 Brief summary: DC finding of infringement of later-issued OB patent by amended ANDA, and that method of treatment claims are patentable under § 101 affirmed. Summary: WW appealed DC holding … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Jurisdiction, Patentability, Written description | Leave a comment

AbbVie, Inc. et al. v. Medimmune Limited

Docket No. 2017-1689 PROST, DYK, CHEN February 5, 2018 Brief summary: DC dismissal of AbbVie’s DJ action affirmed since its requested “declaration would not actually resolve the parties’ contractual dispute” (Medimmune, US 2007). Summary: AbbVie appealed DC grant of Medimmune’s … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Article III disputes, Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC

SCOTUS Docket No. 16-341 May 22, 2017 Brief Summary: SCOTUS held “that a domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute” (28 USC §1400(b)) and not as defined by the broader definition … Continue reading

Posted in Jurisdiction, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

NexLearn, LLC v. Allen Interactions, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-2170, -2221 MOORE, SCHALL, HUGHES June 19, 2017 Brief Summary: DC dismissal of NexLearn’s infringement and breach of contract due to breach of confidentiality relating to an NDA affirmed (e.g., “[w]hile a Kansas resident could purchase ZebraZappsfrom Allen’s … Continue reading

Posted in Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2006 LOURIE, MOORE, HUGHES May 26, 2017 Brief Summary: FC panel determined it lacked jurisdiction under § 1295(a)(1) or § 1295(c)(2) because “the order appealed from is itself non-final”. Summary: Pulse appealed from DC’s award of prejudgment interest … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Damages, Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

Asia Vital Components Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S

Docket No. 2015-1597 PROST, LINN, TARANTO September 8, 2016 Brief Summary: DC dimissal DJ action of noninfringement for not pleading sufficient facts to show there was a substantial controversy reversed since Asetek, e.g., “demonstrate[ed] intent to enforce” its patents. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Infringement, Jurisdiction | Leave a comment