Personal Jurisdiction Over German Licensee Of US Patent Exists Under Rule 4(k)(2) Because The License Had US Commercialization and Patent Enforcement Obligations, But Not Under 35 USC 293 Because The License Was Not Tantamount To An Assignment

The World in U.S. Courts: Winter 2018 - Personal Jurisdiction/Forum Non Conveniens | October.16.2017

RETURN TO Winter 2018 Edition

Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc., d/b/a Paw Prints Genetics v. Laboklin GmbH & Co., KG, US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, October 16, 2017

The University of Bern, in Switzerland, and its licensee, Laboklin, a German company, assert rights to a US patent for genetic testing of dogs to determine the presence of a defect likely to lead to the development of a disease. They claim that the plaintiff GVS is infringing that patent, and GVS filed suit for a declaratory judgment that it was not.

Among other issues, the Court considered whether the university—an “agency or instrumentality” of Switzerland—was subject to suit in the US under the “commercial activity” exception to the FSIA. That exception applies where a governmental unit engages in “the type of actions by which a private party engages in trade … or commerce.” The Court found this requirement met by the university’s having obtained the patent and consenting to the delivery of cease-and-desist letters to GVS in the US in an effort to enforce it. The fact that the consent was provided outside the US was not relevant because the FSIA specifically applies to non-US conduct having a US effect (here, an effort to enforce the patent against a US entity.

[Editor’s Note: This summary also appears in the Personal Jurisdiction/Forum non Conveniens Section of this Report.]

RETURN TO Winter 2018 Edition

RETURN TO The World in US Courts Home Page

US Laws Discussed

Editorial Board