====== Preliminary Matters ======
===== Fed. Cir. finds foreign defendants cannot avoid personal jurisdiction in one venue by consenting to personal jurisdiction in another (posted 01/16/23) =====
**[[https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_4|FCRP 4(k)(2)]]:** **Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction.** For a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if:
(A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any
state’s courts of general jurisdiction; and
(B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United
States Constitution and laws.
> Stingray’s petition focuses on the so-called “negation requirement” of Rule 4(k)(2)(A)—that “the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction.” More specifically, Stingray’s petition presents the question of whether a defendant’s post-suit, unilateral consent to suit in another state prevents this condition from being satisfied. In addressing this issue, we do not write on a clean slate.
>
>[. . .]
>
>Therefore, we now confirm that “the defendant’s burden under the negation requirement entails identifying a forum where the plaintiff could have brought suit—a forum where jurisdiction would have been proper at the time of filing, regardless of consent.” A defendant (such as TP-Link) cannot simply use a “unilateral statement of consent” to preclude application of Rule 4(k)(2) and “achieve transfer into a forum it considers more convenient (or less convenient for its opponent).”
Citations omitted.
* [[ipu>2023/01/that-stings-consent-to-jurisdiction-must-be-effective-at-filing-to-invoke-fed-r-civ-p-4k2/|Summary and analysis]]
* [[rpx>news/73473-general-jurisdiction-over-foreign-defendants-cannot-be-established-through-unilateral-consent-rules-federal-circuit?utm_campaign=weekly_newsletter&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=read_more|Summary and analysis (paywall)]]
* [[law360>articles/1563681|News article summary (paywall]] ({{ :private:20230109_venue.maff |cached - private}})
===== No bright-line rule for minimum contacts giving rise to personal jurisdiction (posted 04/19/22) =====
In //{{ :legal:procedural:apple_v_zipit_21-1760.pdf |Apple Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc.}}//, the Federal Circuit reversed a N.D. California court judge who held that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Zipit despite "minimum contacts" including "multiple letters and claim charts accusing Apple of patent infringement" and the fact that agents for Zipit traveled to Apple's offices in California to discuss these accusations. The district court held that, despite these minimum contacts, it was bound by precedent //Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewics// ((471 U.S. 462, 475-77 (1985) )) which held that "the exercise of personal jurisdiction . . . would be unconstitutional when all of the contacts were for the purpose of warning against infringement or negotiating license agreements, and the defendant lacked a binding obligation in the forum" (internal quotations, citations omitted).
On review, the Federal Circuit reversed, stating (citations omitted, some alteration):
"Zipit argues that minimum contacts are not satisfied here, relying principally on this court’s decision in Autogenomics. In Autogenomics, the defendant-patentee sent a notice letter to the declaratory-judgment plaintiff, the plaintiff “expressed interest in taking a license,” and two of the patentee’s representatives flew to California (the forum state) to meet with the plaintiff’s representatives. Based on the facts of the case and the nature of the specific communications at hand, we determined that the plaintiff “failed to allege sufficient activities ‘relat[ing] to the validity and enforceability of the patent’ in addition to the cease-and-desist communications” to demonstrate minimum contacts.
Zipit argues (and Apple suggested) that Autogenomics created a “bright-line rule . . . that cease-and-desist letters and related in-person discussions cannot support [minimum contracts for] personal jurisdiction.” Appellee’s As an initial matter, we note that there are material factual distinctions between Autogenomics and this case.3 More importantly though, our precedent as a whole—including decisions both before and after Autogenomics—supports our determination that minimum contacts are satisfied here.
* [[law360>ip/articles/1484963/fed-circ-says-notice-letter-justifies-patent-venue-for-apple|News article (paywall)]] ({{ :private:20220418_law360_venue.maff |private cache}})
===== Fed. Cir.: Exclusive licensee lacks standing to sue (09/23/21) =====
**Oral Hearing - enhanced audio**
{{ :legal:procedural:standing:cirba_fed_cir_oral_args.mp3 |Oral Arguments}}