1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Foreign Patentee’s Licensing Efforts Satisfy “Commercial Activity” Exception To Federal Sovereign Immunities Act

Foreign Patentee’s Licensing Efforts Satisfy “Commercial Activity” Exception To Federal Sovereign Immunities Act

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.24.06

In Intel Corp. v. Commonwealth Sci. and Indus. Research Org. (Nos. 06-1032, -1040, July 14, 2006), the Federal Circuit finds the CSIRO's acts of obtaining a U.S. patent and attempting to generate royalty income by licensing the patent were not activities peculiar to a sovereign state under the Federal Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), but commercial activities that a private entity would engage in.

CSIRO, Australia's national science agency, had attempted to license its patent to certain U.S. companies, who subsequently filed declaratory-judgment actions for non-infringement and invalidity after the respective licensing offers expired. CSIRO moved to dismiss the actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming immunity under the FSIA. The Federal Circuit panel rejects CSIRO's argument that the “commercial activity” exception to the FSIA would apply only if its patent license negotiations resulted in a fully-executed, binding contract.

The Federal Circuit also rejects CSIRO's argument that the declaratory-judgment suits are not “based upon” the alleged commercial activity as required under the FSIA. These declaratory-judgment suits, says the panel, are "based on" CSIRO's commercial acts of obtaining and asserting a U.S. patent and, to prevail, plaintiffs must prove that CSIRO attempted to enforce its patent against them. CSIRO's representations as to the scope and validity of the patent during license negotiations are also central to plaintiff's claims.

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25

From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....

View All Insights