Exclusive Licensor Subject To Personal Jurisdiction
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.14.06
In Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals v. Metabolite Labs. (No. 05-1121, -1428; April 7, 2006), a Federal Circuit panel reverses a trial court's holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over a non-resident patent holder/ licensor who was sued along with its exclusive licensee in a declaratory judgment action. The Federal Circuit also determines there are genuine disputes of material fact and vacates the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the exclusive licensee. Summarizing its own cases, the Federal Circuit explains that personal jurisdiction over a nonresident licensor is proper where a license agreement contemplates “a relationship beyond royalty or cross-licensing payment, such as granting both parties the right to litigate infringement cases or granting the licensor the right to exercise control over the licensee's sales or marketing activities.”
Because the non-patent issues in the case are intimately linked with the patent issues, the panel determines the personal jurisdiction law of the Federal Circuit, not regional circuit law, applies. In this case, the exclusive license granted the licensee the right to sue for patent infringement. Working with that exclusive licensee, the patent owner also sent letters to Florida businesses informing them of the patents. The panel holds these activities, coupled with the licensee's business in the state, adequate to provide the district court there with personal jurisdiction over the patent owner.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 07.31.25
A Greater Sum of Certainty: ASBCA Weighs in on when Sum Certain Defense Is Not Waived
A recent Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals decision provides useful guidance on when the government may (or may not) waive its defense that a contractor’s claim failed to state a sum certain. In GE Renewables US, LLC, the contractor had submitted a claim to the contracting officer for a determination that the contractor had the right to an economic price adjustment (EPA) due to an inflation-related price increase. Notably, the contractor did not provide the value of its requested adjustment in its claim. The contracting officer denied the claim, and the contractor appealed to the Board.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 07.31.25
Significant Changes Are in the Works for EU Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Laws
Client Alert | 6 min read | 07.30.25
The new EU “Pharma Package”: Global (Orphan) Marketing Authorization
Client Alert | 4 min read | 07.29.25
Children first: How Ofcom’s Children’s code and age checks change the digital game