Jurisdiction in Patent Declaratory Judgment Actions

Radio Systems Corp. v. Accession, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2011) – Part III

The jurisdiction of US Federal Courts is limited in several important ways. One usual doctrinal divide is between subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. Because patent enforcement is clearly a matter a Federal Law, the subject matter jurisdiction question normally boils down to whether an “actual case or controversy” exists between the parties as required by Article III of the US Constitution (as interpreted). In MedImmune, the Supreme Court suggested that this actual case or controversy inquiry should be flexible and open.

Personal jurisdiction is a separate question and asks whether a court holds power over the actual parties to the lawsuit. Because plaintiffs are deemed to waive personal jurisdiction objections in the filing of the complaint, the more usual question is whether the court holds power over the defendants to a lawsuit.

Federalism: Personal jurisdiction is one area of the law where the power of the various fifty-states has been deemed to somewhat outweigh the power of the national government. In a seemingly odd system, the question of personal jurisdiction in Federal Courts boils down to whether a State Court in the state where the Federal Court is sited would have power over the defendant. State Court personal jurisdiction tends to then be limited by reference back to US Constitutional principles of due process. Thus, the question asked by the Federal Courts sited in a particular state is whether it would “comport with due process notions of fair play” for a State Court in that state to exercise control over a defendant based on the facts as they are stated in the case.

The usual approach is to look at the extent of the defendant’s contacts with the state and consider whether those meet some minimum threshold level. Normally, each state is seen as a separate entity. Thus, contacts with Mississippi will not give rise to personal jurisdiction across the border in Tennessee. Under the doctrine of Specific Jurisdiction, contacts with the forum state that relate directly to the controversy between the parties tend to be more likely to create personal jurisdiction. However, sufficient unrelated contacts with the forum state can separately lead to a finding of personal jurisdiction under a the doctrine of General Jurisdiction. A final important point is that the jurisdiction tests are separate and distinct from the venue inquiry. Thus, even when a court properly has jurisdiction over a case and the parties, it may still refuse to hear the case based on arguments of improper or inconvenient venue. See TS Tech.

In the case at hand, Radio Systems sued Accession in the Eastern District of Tennessee – asking the court for a declaratory judgment that Accession’s patent was invalid and not infringed. The district court dismissed the case – holding that the Federal Court based in Tennessee lacked personal jurisdiction over Accession. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Accession is a small New Jersey based private corporation. Mr. Sullivan owns the company. He is also the company’s sole employee. During a three year period prior to the declaratory judgment lawsuit, Sullivan contacted Radio Systems on multiple occasions looking to create a business relationship between the parties. The contacts involved letters, e-mails, telephone calls and one trip to Radio Systems’ main office in Tennessee where Sullivan demonstrated his product. (At the face-to-face meeting, Sullivan refused to leave his prototype behind, but did sign a non-disclosure agreement that included Tennessee as the exclusive forum for actions arising from the non-disclosure agreement). There is plenty of evidence that the proposed business relationship would center on the manufacturing and marketing of Mr. Sullivan patented invention – a pet-entrance module for sliding glass patio doors. However, there is no evidence that Sullivan threatened a lawsuit or that Radio Systems challenged the validity of the Sullivan patent during any of the meetings. As a side-show, after it was clear that no deal was going to happen, Sullivan’s patent attorney contacted the USPTO as an informal protest to one of Radio Systems’ pending patent applications. In September 2009, Accession’s counsel also sent letters to Radio Systems “outlining Accession’s infringement allegations and suggesting that the dispute be settled through a licensing agreement.” In November 2009, Radio Systems then filed the declaratory judgment lawsuit in Tennessee.

In its want to lay down clear guidance, the Federal Circuit has previously ruled that “ordinary cease-and-desist notices sent by a patentee to an alleged infringing party in a different state are not sufficient to subject the patentee to specific jurisdiction in that state.” Rather, for a finding of specific personal jurisdiction, the infringement-alleging letter must be accompanied by some other activities related to the allegations that are directed to the forum state. See Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1019 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As a dividing line for specific jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit only “counts” activities related to enforcement of the patent or defenses against infringement. Other activities directed at the forum state that are merely related to the licensing, marketing, manufacturing or development of the invention do not count toward a finding of specific personal jurisdiction. As the court wrote in Autogenomics:

[O]nly enforcement or defense efforts related to the patent rather than the patentee’s own commercialization efforts are to be considered for establishing specific personal jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action against the patentee.

The court held that interference with Radio Signal’s pending application at the USPTO does not bolster the claim for personal jurisdiction in Tennessee because the USPTO is not located in Tennessee (even though Radio Signal owns its patents in Tennessee).

We made clear in Avocent that enforcement activities taking place outside the forum state do not give rise to personal jurisdiction in the forum, and that decision is controlling here.

Radio Systems did not claim a violation of the non-disclosure agreement, but argued that Sullivans agreement to be subject to personal jurisdiction in Tennessee for actions arising from that agreement should be sufficient fair warning to Sullivan that his company may be subject to action in Tennessee. The Federal Circuit rejected that argument because the agreement did not relate directly to the enforcement or validity of the patent at issue but rather only involved the subject matter of the invention and potential commercialization of the invention.

Finding of no personal jurisdiction affirmed. Federal Courts in Tennessee courts have no jurisdiction over Accession for this patent non-infringement action.

98 thoughts on “Jurisdiction in Patent Declaratory Judgment Actions

  1. 98

    Leave the Moonster alone, ping. It’s the only sandbox he knows. Moonster has been playing here so long he’s afraid to leave. Anyway, he wouldn’t know where else to go. And this is the probably the only place that would tolerate his perpetual comment diarrhea.

  2. 97

    pingaling has a blog, like DC has a blog.

    STILL waiting there Sunshine – out with it – Tell us who I am and what is my blog.

    Or are ya full of shtt as usual, no substance just hand wavy thingies?

    I lolz ya.

  3. 96

    If you own a patent, but you do not use the patented invention in a product or service, you are still

    entitled to enforce your patent. You are known in the world of patents and patent enforcement as a “non-

    practicing entity” or “NPE” — or more rudely put, a “patent troll.” For more information onpatent enforcement news and updates;

    explore http://www.industryweek.com.

  4. 95


    Sorry – not helpful.

    Ya think that Sunshine would simply end the rigamarole and post just who he thinks I am.

    Must be too much mental gymnastics for the poor 2D man.

  5. 93

    Why don’t you just out yourself? C’mon, you’ll feel better…

    Mighty big ASSumption there fella.

    Especially one so keenly critical of what gets posted on these here boards to ASSume that Sunshine is actually right. With his track record, “Not sure where you dug this up.

    Esplain yourself, help out, or just STFU – anything put your pointless “heh heh, I’m following sunshine, even though I dont knows where he goes“.

    Or am I being too cy nical with you?

  6. 92

    Sorry, this is the only blog for me. I’m just not that familiar with the dietary habits of any other bloggers.

    Why don’t you just out yourself? C’mon, you’ll feel better…

  7. 91


    Cmon dude – help me out – rather than simply pan each guess I put up, why dontcha put up some guesses too?

    I’m running out of them.

  8. 90

    Mr. Kappos is not fat, and wears pretty decent ties. I can’t speak to his health, but I’ve never noticed any particularly prominent acne scars. But congratulations, you’ve identified a bald guy. With a blog.

  9. 89

    Lolz – I just realized another possibility – Sunshine, do ya think that I am Lord Kappos?

    That early pronouncement that “Quality does not equal reject” really set ya off didnt. Or was it the capitulation to Taffas? Or the tabling of the Appeals rules?

    I lolz ya some more.

    Even though “Homey dont do answers” there Sunshine,
    we have been through this little delusion O yours before, mind you.

    But here be an observation: I am not David Kappos.

    So I guess that your accuracy record be intact (and that would be 0%).

  10. 87


    Let’s not be cryptic – out with it, who this mystery blog owner?

    I lolz you and your little 2D conspiracy mind.

  11. 86

    who fits that description, has a blog

    That would be you.

    makes that incredible list O “respected” peeps?

    Not sure where you dug this up.

  12. 84

    Ya got me then – who fits that description, has a blog and makes that incredible list O “respected” peeps?

  13. 83

    But here be an observation: I am not Gene Quinn.

    I wasn’t even thinking about GQ. Dude has plenty of hair.

  14. 81

    Excepts Cy, what other such person in the patent context do you know that has a blog and would be fitting that description?

    Regale me with that long list.

    And then tell me how “I am not is a “non-denial.” Take your time trying to think something up. Try ta sound above the level of a rock, m’K?

  15. 80

    OK, sunshine, since I be in sch a good mood, let me drop ya a hint with a return question:

    Tell me, sunshine: when a person is sued, is that person precluded from arguing that the plaintiff(s) lack standing?

    Now go back and re-read my comment in the context of your b_ozo non sequitur – ANd keep in mind we just got through a thread O your one sided mudslinging.

    Geesh – O what little mind ya have, my 2D friend.

  16. 79

    I’m guessing that Gene Quinn is not the only guy who meets the description: 50+, unhealthy, fat, often wearing an ugly tie, stains under the pits. Bald. Acne scars.

    Fascinating non-denial observation there, ping.

  17. 78


    You are right – sunshine is what he projects.

    But since ya been around the block here for quite awhile, ya already knew that, didntcha?

  18. 74

    Even though “Homey dont do answers” there Sunshine,
    we have been through this little delusion O yours before, mind you.

    But here be an observation: I am not Gene Quinn.

    So I guess that your accuracy record be intact (and that would be 0%).

  19. 73

    I would like to know how I can mail a Priority Package on the 26th, and it still hasn’t shown up? And I could have walked there by now?
    And I wonder if it has anything to do with a long lost Relative from Alberta? I don’t know anyone from Alberta.
    I wonder if that is why my Priority package disappeared? NO DOUBT! Must have sent it Phony Express.I wonder, I sent it from the Post Office, not phony express.

  20. 72

    How old are you, by the way? I’m guessing you’re 50+, unhealthy, fat, often wearing an ugly tie, stains under the pits. Bald. Acne scars.

    I noticed you didn’t answer. 100% accurate, isn’t it?

    How’s your blog doing?


  21. 71

    standing dont have anything ta do with the “corporate defendant

    Tell me, pingaling: when a corporation is sued, is it precluded from arguing that the plaintiff(s) lack standing?

  22. 70

    Ever teh source of lolz:

    Malcolm Mooney said in reply to ping…
    <>teh way you dance every time

    Reply Apr 30, 2011 at 02:24 PM

    and earlier:

    Malcolm Mooney said in reply to ping…
    standing dont have anything ta do with the “corporate defendant

    Reply Apr 28, 2011 at 03:08 PM

    Ya know,with such analyitcal command, one might wonder just whom is the “rock” Funny that the one who dont understand be the one throwin accusations…

    O wait – this be sunshine, the one who dont even need to read cases or even comments to know what the right answer is (his) – SOP (and chuckle city)

  23. 68

    lolz – I got the Big D’s next project – how many times does Sunshine boy stay sooooo classy?

    I even provide an observation to get D started – on this here single thread we got:

    F off, pingaling. – Reply Apr 28, 2011 at 01:52 PM

    The difference is: pingaling’s blog sxcks xss. – Reply Apr 29, 2011 at 05:05 PM

    Whatever, dipshxt. – Reply Apr 29, 2011 at 05:03 PM

    pathetic axxholes like him. Or you. – Reply Apr 30, 2011 at 12:06 AM

    pssst 2D man – ya might ask your doc to check your psychitropic levels – you be slipping quite often.

  24. 67

    pathetic axxholes

    Stay Classy San Diego

    It bring supreme chuckles teh way this “rockconstantly gets the better of you Sunshine, teh way you dance every time I get out my pointy stick. As has been observed before – if ya think I be “pathetic”, what does that make you my lowly 2D man, my little dancing puppet? Think about it.

    And yes once aain, ya couldnt ignore me if ya tried.

    And hows that link coming? (the popcorn refills are free)

    And let me quote me (always a source O solid observations):

    derogaroty fluffy comments

    Sometimes I h_ate being so right.

  25. 66

    The issue be with your constant stream of swearing

    You mean your issue, don’t you pingaling?

    And that’s a strange use of the word “constant”.

    I mean, it seems accurate to say “Ping constantly refers to Malcolm (aka “Sunshine”) even when Malcolm has not made a comment in a thread, or is expressly ignoring pingaling.”

    But I don’t think I’m “constantly” “swearing.” I find it odd that any adult would even notice.

    How old are you, by the way? I’m guessing you’re 50+, unhealthy, fat, often wearing an ugly tie, stains under the pits. Bald. Acne scars.

    Don’t take that as an insult. I have good friends who fit the bill. They may look like Karl Rove, but they aren’t pathetic axxholes like him.

    Or you.

  26. 65

    My comments were not self-contradictory, because personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction are two separate issues. I didn’t say that a speculative cease-and-desist letter might [not] create personal jurisdiction, I said that a speculativ cease-and-desist letter might not provide enough basis for a declaratory judgment (DJ), i.e., no subject matter jurisdiction. You have to keep the discussions separate or there is a hopeless muddle.

  27. 64

    i find your comments to be self-contradictory: on one hand you state that “there are no magic words for the cease-and-desist letter that will create personal jurisdiction”; you then state that a “‘speculative’ cease-and-desist letter” might create personal jurisdiction.

    i futher don’t agree with your inference that cease and desist letter are insufficient grounds to create personal jurisdiction per force. the cafc referred to “*ordinary* cease and desist notices” (emphasis added). it was also noted that accession did not threaten that it would file a patent infringement lawsuit. so it is not my reading of the decision that a cease and desist letter that contained a threat of litigation conditional on the recipient’s response would not provide sufficient grounds for sender pj in the recipient’s forum.

  28. 63

    Sunshine, do you pay for that goal post moving equipment by the hour or do you have your very own set?

    In case ya didnt notice, the issue aint whether or not I am classy – never has been.

    The issue be with your constant stream of swearing (that ya gotta resort to cause you just are not that clever) – the focus clearly be on you.

    I unerstand that for a little minded 2D man like yourself, the mental gymnastics might just be more than you can handle. Dont worry – wait 13 minutes and you rattnetion span can take care of that.

  29. 62

    if i am following this correctly, then it would appear that a cease and desist letter that contained a threat of subsequent litigation if the recipient does not agree to terms would form a sufficient basis for sender pj in the recipient’s forum.

    You’re not, and no, it would not. Other actions in that jurisdiction to enforce the patent are required (e.g., suits in that jurisdiction, hiring a lawyer in that jurisdiction to write the cease-and-desist letters). There are no magic words for the cease-and-desist letter that will create personal jurisdiction.

    On the separate issue of whether there is a basis for a DJ, a “speculative” cease-and-desist letter, as you describe it, might not do it. The letter must cause a real apprehension of an immediate threat of a lawsuit.

  30. 61

    Just curious: does anyone here think pingaling is “classy”? I know there’s a few who think he’s DAAFR. But “classy”?

    Let me know.

  31. 60

    i gave some further thought to the reasoning and have concluded that the underlying motivation for the cafc’s reasoning is to avoid potential abuses of dj actions.

    if there were no issue of personal jurisdiction, you could file a dj action in any court. this would encourage forum shopping. where there is some contact you may still want to raise the required level of minimum contacts for policy reasons. it is hard to argue that a cease and desist letter does not establish some contact with the recipient’s forum. but the sender could be sending the c&d letter as a kind of “floater” just to see whether he can pick off easy royalties, but the sender may have no intention of actually filing a lawsuit if the recipient doesn’t bite. if you allowed the establishment of sender pj in the recipient’s forum on the mere basis of a “speculative” cease and desist letter, then recipient’s could strategically sit on any possible excuse to get their complaint heard in a favorable jurisdiction.

    alternatively, the sender could be sending the cease and desist letter and may be considering litigation at some future point in time but had not decided on such course of action at the time that the letter was sent. in such case, it would seem unreasonable to assert sender pj in the recipient’s forum if the sender had not even decided on, on indicated that it was planning on, instigating litigation to enforce the patent.

    so it would seem that the cafc is saying that you have only send a cease and desist letter, but you also have to indicate that there is the possibility of pending litigation (or some other enforcement action) in addition to the mere idea that you sent a cease and desist letter. if i am following this correctly, then it would appear that a cease and desist letter that contained a threat of subsequent litigation if the recipient does not agree to terms would form a sufficient basis for sender pj in the recipient’s forum.

    i do follow the reasoning that says that commercialization attempts do not count…

    one other point that is a bit puzzling though is the logic behind finding that the accession interference to the radio system patent application did not create accession pj in tennessee because the uspto is located in virginia. to my view, the interference does not constitute an enforcement of the accession patent but rather an attempt to block radio systems from getting a patent. to that extent, the interference does not establish a basis for specific jurisdiction (at least not with regard to the accession cease and desist letter).

  32. 57

    The first reaction of the small minded man trapped in a planar circle


    Stay classy San Diego.

    O wait, this is sunshine – SOP

  33. 56

    No, I meant obtuse – as in those repeated windmill blade strikes to sunshine’s head.

    But thanks for trying!

  34. 54

    pingaling is also DAAFR.

    pingaling has a blog, like DC has a blog.

    The difference is: pingaling’s blog sxcks xss.

  35. 51


    Two ideas nearly identical – egads, Babbs must be Cy !

    I would ask Cy to jump right on this sockpupput conspiracy mystery theatre action, but he would have to recuse himself (twice?).

    And yes Sunshine – this is lolz at you and your little 2D world.

  36. 49

    It’s a little confusing, but the court has previously said that you need something in addition to the cease-and-desist letter to give rise to specific jurisdiction. Post-Medimmune, the cease-and desist letter may be enough to create a controversy, but that’s a subject matter jurisdiction question that is distinct from the personal jurisdiction issues.

    The court is not saying that the cease-and-desist letter is not an enforcement activity. Instead, it is saying that a cease-and-desist letter alone does not make for personal jurisdiction.

  37. 48

    But ping is a blogger …

    And so is everyone else who “blogs”…?

    Your obtuse point is….

    …what exactly?

  38. 47

    It’s real easy to get your eyes crossed on these multiple layers/grounds of jurisdiction.

    Even if the C&D is viewed as enforcement of the patent and is sufficient to produce a federal law controversy [subject matter jurisdiction], that doesn’t mean the C&D, without more, provides the minimum contacts that are required for in personam in the state the DJ action was filed in.

    So the DJ plaintiff may have to take the federal law controversy to the patentee’s state and file the DJ there, which is likely where the patentee wants it filed.

    Fair’s only fair. Why should an infringer be able to jerk the patentee around with a DJ anywhere but where the patentee is or does business just because the patentee fired a warning shot across the infringer’s bow?

  39. 45

    what i find puzzling in this decision is that (if i am reading it correctly) the cafc states that a cease and desist letter does not constitute an attempt to enforce a patent and thereby does not create a basis for asserting personal jurisdiction against the defendant party. but a cease and desist letter seeks to get the recipient to refrain from some action on the basis of an allegation by the sender that the recipient’s action infringes the sender’s patent rights. this, to me, sounds like an attempt by the sender to enforce his patent rights. it also, to me, creates a basis for a controversy if the recipient does not agree with the sender’s allegations.

  40. 44

    I totally should have just said that everything looked cool to me and she could leave

    Wrong on so many levels – even for 6.

  41. 43

    lolz 6 – or maybe I be Gene Quinn out to ban you from yet another blog site – cause one just aint enough.

  42. 42

    lolz on the “thingfish”

    (Zappa wasnt my “thing” – but especially funny given the DuMont thread.

    Cy, ya wanna catch the government plot angle here – a real chuckle bringer.

  43. 41

    You guys want to hear a funny story though?

    I went to court the other day, and before the court opened up I happened to go sit in the waiting room because I was so early. While I was in there I was reviewing some caselawl as one is wont to do before one smacks the bejezusus out of the state for daring to drag you down to the courthouse so early in the morning. And I’m just sitting in the room reading at this table and there is one dude sitting behind me also waiting. This policeman comes in with this woman with him and he proceeds to start telling me all about this case and a bunch of details and wondering what I thought and then the lady tells me she didn’t know about this or that in a rather begging tone. The policeman then asked me if I was the CA. He then asked me again when he got no response. I had been trying to ignore him the whole time because I thought he was talking to the guy behind me. Finally I understood he was talking to me the whole time and I told him No.

    I totally should have just said that everything looked cool to me and she could leave lolololololol. I didn’t realize quickly enough that he thought I was the CA and had been asking me about whether or not he should prosecute her or not the whole time.

    Bottom line, dress up nice and go sit in the waiting room outside a courtroom and you might get to play CA.

  44. 40

    Morbid fascination? So you’re killing them too?

    You’re s!ck.

  45. 39

    Sometimes I think pingerdoodle is actually D in disquise trying to pi ss everyone off enough so that everyone else will shout with one voice that we should moderate the boards severly enough to ban people who troll as hard as he does.

  46. 37

    lolz at 6.

    Did I say trying?

    Please stop – the above be just plain embarassing.

    Ya need to get a real lawyer – know any?

  47. 33

    Ah, how pingaling loves the “train wreck.” Anyone here ever wonder why pingaling talks like a Thingfish?

    Think about it.

  48. 32

    Thanks. I Googled “hand waive” and the number one result was, “ping’s favorite activity at the school playground.”

    That Google sure is smart.

  49. 31

    lulz, good guess, but I don’t have the problem. Yet.

    “I’m curious, though, how do you measure the damages flowing these “administrative actions”? ”

    I measure it in this case on the amount I was charged to have the administrative agency UNDO its own action, plus perhaps a small amount to account for how much the state/fed might charge me in taxes on income recieved from the state itself as a remedy from a court.

  50. 30

    Sorry, 6, those sex offender registry statutes are usually upheld. although I’m a little surprised to hear that the Virginia DMV is now putting your “status” on your license.

    I’m curious, though, how do you measure the damages flowing these “administrative actions”? Can you put a monetary value on your inability to get a date?

    Good luck!

  51. 29

    I might however sue a local government for an administrative action taken, the DMV for an administrative action taken, and the police for violation of privacy. Or a combination of the above. So, joinder? No joinder? Jurisdiction? All these questions and I just know if I file then the responding attorney(s) is going to be all up ins some joinder/jurisdiction issues. As well as I’m guessing some possibile state immunity issues.

    And I currently have no reason to sue the PTO, but if I ever become a famoose inventor man like Tafas then I’d like to know how one goes about making those kinds of actions.

    And I’m especially curious if you’re seeking a non-monetary relief such as an instruction from the court for the agency to stop mis-applying the lawl, to conform its practices to the protections afforded by the constitution, a state constitution, or federal law, etc. etc. like oh, I don’t know, an injunction (which, I note, would likely need to issue based upon equitable considerations) or declaratory relief. Or a non-monetary remedy as well as some non-monetary relief. or, if the court determines those non-monetary reliefs to not be proper in such a situation as my own, how to just simply say alright then let’s go for the monetary damages.

  52. 26

    You’re funny.

    I was just noting that you’re an expert in everything you’ve ever read more than 2 blog posts on, from equity to standing to damages to induced infringement to venue ad infinitum. Don’t let little things like jurisdiction and joinder slow you down. Type a few words into Google scholar, read some snippets, declare yourself an expert like you do on every other topic, and go on your merry way.

    You feeling all right?

  53. 24

    You should throw the UN and the Trilateral Commission in there, just for the heck of it. And Bill Gates.

  54. 23

    “Considering that you’re an expert in equity by virtue of nothing more than reading blog posts, I don’t see what the problem is. ”

    What does equity have to do jurisdiction? Is jurisdiction an equitable matter now?

  55. 22

    I’m not suing the local government, the PTO, and the DMV because of that. They’re just three actors I know of that exist in the world. There are plenty more, those are just three I know of and stated.

  56. 21

    Lolz all around.

    I will say this though – at least 6 be trying, even if he done give up right away. Others like Sunshine and wtvlfdt dont even try – just merely waive there hands and swear and make derogatory fluffy comments.

  57. 20

    Lolz – there’s that classy reply yet again.

    The truth hurts so much it makes Sunshine swear.

  58. 18

    Considering that you’re an expert in equity by virtue of nothing more than reading blog posts, I don’t see what the problem is.

  59. 17

    Hint – If you’re suing the local government, the PTO, and the DMV because you got a ticket for reckless driving on the way to work, then that’s not a “standard ho hum action.” Instead, that’s a standard “case dismissed, and if you try that again I’ll hold you in contempt of court” action.

  60. 16

    “You can discuss that all you like. Once you get into law school and take a class called Civil Procedure.”

    Yeah I had a feeling that was one of the things they might be touching on. Such bs, I can’t even learn about the basics of the lawl in order to file me up a standard ho hum action proper like without going to lawschool.

  61. 13

    You can discuss that all you like. Once you get into law school and take a class called Civil Procedure.

    Good luck.

  62. 11

    Hey guys can we discuss something more interesting like jurisdiction in suing, like o, say, a local government entity, the DMV, or the PTO? That is, more generally, how do you determine where it would be best to file the suit and what constitutes proper joinder of suits against different parties when the case is essentially all based on the same action taken by one actor but where other actors took actions based thereupon?

  63. 10

    particularly in light

    Another Sunshine non sequitur moment – ya do know that standing dont have anything ta do with the “corporate defendant”, dontcha?

  64. 9


    I think “mere” merely be a categorical reference.

    And that be (C)onstitutional dimension, which be a non sequitur to the question (heck, ALL law be traceable to the big C, but that be hardly th epoint now is it?)

  65. 8

    sweet sarah,

    So if you meet me, have some courtesy
    Have some [symphoney] and some taste
    Use all your well learned politics
    Or I’ll lay your soul to waste, mmm yeah

  66. 7

    Umm. Last time I checked, standing and jurisdiction have a cnstitutional dimension and are not merely civ pro matters. They go to the heart of the Court’s power to adjudicate, which is limited.

  67. 6

    One of these Things is just like the other,
    surely you’ll find they’re one and the same.
    And what one did was behind the other,
    to round it out, their special Game.

    So obviously the answer is only,
    if only one is tested I lose the Game.
    But now you know I’m not eating baloney,
    And as earlier stated two played the Game.
    The biggest hurdle was finding the stuff,
    that was taken from me as they played the Game.
    But after a search of what came up missing,
    I walk with a limp, but I’m not lame.

    It’s they who should tremble,and no mail from me.
    That was the connection,so I went on a spree.
    I searched and I searched and lo and behold.
    What I put together is pure Gold.

    Sometimes my Poetry is laid out in prose.
    Sometimes it’s a limerick, sometimes it’s a song.
    Sometimes it’s all garbled, sometimes it’s just wrong.

    But surely no Mailings were all I could see.
    So goodbye to you Devil’s. I’m happy for me.
    And as for the Radio that’s still all on you.
    No voice, only listening, should be in the Constitution too.

    So maybe the Courts will see it as such,
    Free Speech denied, and having to listen,
    Is not free at all, but maybe too much.
    Because that’s all I had when the worm started dissing.

  68. 4

    Interesting point, particularly in light of the fact that the present Supreme Court seems especially willing to give the corporate defendant the benefit of the doubt when it comes to such matters.

  69. 3

    Thanks Dennis,

    But the point was not a direct one-to-one comparison, but rather a type-of-issue comparison.

    Standing and Jurisdiction are both mere civil procedure matters. With the CAFC especially wary of a Supreme Court smackdown for any perceived treatment of patent cases that differs from any other area of substantive law (in exactly such type-of-issue cases), my question remains.

  70. 2

    TL – the issue in the AMP / Myriad case is one of subject matter jurisdiction rather than personal jurisdiction. So, this particular case won’t help Myriad.

  71. 1

    Admittedly difficult to compare a panel decision to an en banc decision, but does the relatively straight forward application of a rather mundane civil procedure concept spell doom for the ACLU and its dubious position of standing in the AMP v USPTO case?

Comments are closed.