# National Patent Development Corporation v. T.J. Smith & Nephew Limited

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · June 16, 1989 · 877 F.2d 1003

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479163

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL PATENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant v. T.J. SMITH & NEPHEW LIMITED
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** June 16, 1989
- **Citations:** 877 F.2d 1003; 278 U.S. App. D.C. 215; 11 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1211; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 8943; 1989 WL 63756
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Silberman
- **Judges:** Wald, Robinson, Mikva, Edwards, Ginsburg, Silberman, Buckley, Williams, Sentelle
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479163

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479163. Public record. Not legal advice.