Patently O

SEPTEMBER 8, 2022

The Federal Circuit has repeatedly stated that exercise of personal jurisdiction over a patentee is improper when the company’s only related “contacts were for the purpose of warning against infringement or negotiating license agreements.” 3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. ” Breckenridge Pharm., 2006); Hildebrand v.

Laws 51

Laws Court Government Litigation 51

Patently O

MAY 17, 2021

Rather than choosing Iowa or Colorado, the companies chose the Northern District of California, which is Trimble’s home court. 2018) (holding that, for personal jurisdiction purposes, a letter sent to a company’s counsel is directed to the company at its headquarters, not the location of counsel); Inamed Corp.

Litigation 108

Litigation Litigating Cause of Action Court 108

Conflict of Laws

MAY 7, 2022

2013-13, Decision on Jurisdiction of 13 December 2013, where a Macau-based company invoked the China-Laos BIT 1993 to initiate the UNCITRAL ad hoc arbitration administered by PCA against Laos. [7] 2d 1356 (2009) (US); America’s Collectibles Network Inc. 6] See Sanum Investments Ltd. Lao People’s Democratic Republic , PCA Case No.

Depositions 52

Depositions Government Contract Laws 52