Home » Patent Law Updates » New Judicial Opinions » Current Summary
Patent Law Summary
Ricoh Company, Ltd. v. Asutek Computer, Inc.
06-C-0462-C, 2007 WL 981712, W.D.Wis., 04/03/2007
Holding
The district court granted defendants’ (foreign competitors’) motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit, stating that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants both under the specific and general personal provisions of the Wisconsin long-arm statute.
Detailed Summary
Plaintiff (patent holder) initiated a civil action for monetary and injunctive relief against defendants, alleging patent infringement committed by the latter in regard to its optical disk drives. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on the ground that the court had no authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over them. The purchases made by a local counsel of plaintiff through an online retailer was not enough to confer personal jurisdiction upon the court. “Economic harm to plaintiff did not arise out of defendants’ actions when no sale would have been made but for plaintiff’s own purchases,” the court said. The online retailer did not have branches in Wisconsin, and no proof was presented to show that there were residents of Wisconsin who obtained plaintiff’s products in Wisconsin, other than plaintiff itself. The due process clause required that personal jurisdiction should arise from the purposeful activity of the defendants, not the plaintiff itself. The court further ruled that it could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants under the general personal jurisdiction provision of Wisconsin long-arm statute, since competitors (defendants) had never visited Wisconsin, were not registered to do business in the state, and had not engaged in its own advertising or otherwise solicited business in the state. Additionally, it was found that the defendants did not have any employees, real estate, bank accounts, registered agents, or sales people in Wisconsin, and the handful of local sales they had did not qualify as substantial activity. Therefore, the court found for the defendants in granting their motion to dismiss the patent infringement suit.
Service
Link to this article · 
Send via E-mail · 
Printable Version (opens in new window)
