holding that "a suit over patent ownership surely respects or affects rights under a patent” and that such suits will confer personal jurisdiction over a defendant under § 293
How later courts described this case
- holding that "a suit over patent ownership surely respects or affects rights under a patent” and that such suits will confer personal jurisdiction over a defendant under § 293
- dispute over patent ownership “falls comfortably within [the] boundaries” of statutory term “action respecting the patent or rights thereunder”
- regis tration of patent with United States Patent and Trademark Office by foreign national sufficient to constitute “purposeful availment” in this country
- "35 U.S.C. § 293 authorizes the assertion of personal jurisdiction by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia over a nonresident patentee in a suit over patent ownership."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SILBERMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the court’s opinion, including its unwillingness to explore the outer boundaries of the statute’s reach — which, as I mentioned in the panel opinion, are not readily apparent. Compare Michigan Citizens For An Independent Press v. Thornburgh, 868 F.2d 1285, 1293-94 (D.C.Cir.), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1952 , 104 L.Ed.2d 421 (1989) with 868 F.2d at 1299 (R. Ginsburg, J., dissenting). But I voted against putting the issue to the en banc court, because I thought we could abide by the fifteen-year-old Neidhart opinion. I continue to ponder 1 my colleagues’ disposition so readily to en banc cases, including those based on settled precedent. See, e.g., Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516 (D.C.Cir.1988) (en banc).
Of course, as it turns out, we are unanimous in our decision, so this case cannot be described as an “apparent ideological use of en banc review” according to a recent political polemic in the Harvard Law Review. See Note, The Politics of En Banc Review, 102 HARV.L.REV. 864 (1989). That simplistic concept, as defined in the note, turns on the identity of the President who appointed all of the judges in the majority of an en banc vote. I do not, however, think that factor should weigh one way or the other in determining whether we should afford en banc review.
. Perhaps I have been too parsimonious.