Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Confronting Issues of Personal Jurisdiction and Interactive Web Sites in Patent Litigation
Questions of personal jurisdiction, especially with respect to forum contacts arising out of Internet-related activities, have been litigated now for nearly a decade. During that time, courts have had occasion to analyze and rule upon all sorts of activities through the constitutional lenses of 'minimum contacts' and 'purposeful availment.' While most circuits appear to have developed relatively robust lines of authority to analyze whether personal jurisdiction exists where the type and nature of the contacts remain grounded in Internet-related activities, the jurisprudence of the Federal Circuit in this area is of relatively recent vintage. At least one district court appears to have concluded that the Federal Circuit's jurisprudence concerning personal jurisdiction and Web site interactivity remains unsettled. A district court sitting in Indiana noted that, '[t]he Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Court of Appeals have provided very little guidance regarding the concept of personal jurisdiction established through a party's Internet activities.' Aero Industries, Inc. v. Demonte Fabricating, Ltd., 396 F. Supp. 2d 961, 967 (S.D. Ind. 2005). This article examines recent patent cases by district courts where Internet-related forum contacts appeared to be present or significant to the courts' rulings on personal jurisdiction grounds.
General and Specific Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction may be of two types, specific or general. Under the 'specific' personal jurisdiction concept, a court derives its authority because the plaintiff's cause of action arises directly from the defendant's activity purposefully directed toward the forum state. The court does not have jurisdiction to hear other claims against the same defendant that do not arise from the forum-related activity. 'General' personal jurisdiction, on the other hand, may be asserted over a defendant in any forum where the defendant's activities in the forum state have been substantial, continuous, and systematic. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416-18 (1984). Where general jurisdiction is found, the court may adjudicate both forum-connected claims as well as claims that have no connection to the forum state.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.