Short Answer: where the defendant has minimum contacts
28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) makes it very clear that “Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, OR where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” Furthermore, “for purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Thus, for practical purposes, under the federal statutes, you can only sue a patent infringement defendant where he resides or where he does business. Of course, there is a lot embedded in those words, such as “resides” and “does business”, which we will explore below.
In order to get personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant, the forum state’s long arm statute must be satisfied and federal due process must be satisfied. Most states interpret long-arm statutes to be co-extensive with due process. So, effectively, the “minimum contacts” test under Int’l Shoe and Burger King:
“the Federal Circuit applies a three prong test to determine if specific jurisdiction exists: (1) whether the defendant purposefully directed activities at residents of the forum; (2) whether the claim arises out of or relates to those activities; and (3) whether assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair.” Nuance Comm. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
A typical ground for personal jurisdiction that is used by many
Yes, it can. A product can most definitely infringe a method of manufacture patent. I recently sent a cease a desist letter to a retailer of a luggage product that was manufactured using my client’s patented method of manufacture. His attorney – a patent attorney who’d been practicing for many years – responded with a letter that tersely stated “all of the claims of the ‘226 patent are method claims and this no product could infringe a claim, only the practicing of a method could infringe.” That’s it – that’s all he had to say about that.
Besides the fact that this attorney’s statement of law was embarrassingly incorrect, he also put it in writing. It’s unbelievable to me that in today’s internet age, anyone would knowingly write something so incorrect on paper, for everyone to see. Imagine the internet storm that would ensue had I imaged the letter and put it on Twitter or Instagram? How badly would his online reputation suffer?
Getting back to the law, prior to 1988, importation was not one of a patent holder’s exclusive rights under U.S. patent law. But the 1988 Process Patent Amendment Act added section 271(g) to the Patent Act, making the importation of a product made by a patented process an act of infringement.
Today, the owner of a U.S. patent claiming a process for manufacturing a product can, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), bring suit in U.S. federal court against a party who manufactures the product using the patented process even in a
Patents grant you the right to exclude others from making, using, selling or importing a patented product or process. Without a patent, others can typically use your ideas and monetize them without any recourse. Patents can be used to protect many different things including products or innovative new ways of doing things, i.e., a process that offers a new solution to a complex problem. It is highly recommended that you enlist the services of a legal professional who will help you through the patent process. I, Mark Terry , am a patent lawyer located in Miami, Florida. In the UK, I recommend Baron Warren Redfern Patent lawyers in London.
With this in mind let’s have a look at some interesting facts about Patents.
1. In 1963, a teenager invented a special ratchet and asked Sears if they would be interested in buying the patent. After telling him that the patent has no real value, Sears gave him $10,000 and eventually made $44 million from selling the ratchets.
2. We still don’t know who actually invented fire hydrants – as the patent itself was destroyed in a fire.
3. The product WD-40 is not protected by a patent. It is protected using trade secrets.
4. Jonas Salk did not patent his polio vaccine for reasons of morality. He would have made $7 billion from it if he had decided to protect it.
5. The people who discovered insulin did not patent their discovery for similar reasons. This has led to millions of people