United States: Federal Circuit Expands Personal Jurisdiction In Declaratory Judgment Suits

In Xilinx Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, Appeal No. 2015-1919 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2017), the Federal Circuit applied the usual test for in personam jurisdiction, in an apparently new way, to reverse dismissal of a declaratory judgment suit against an alien patent owner seeking to avoid the alleged infringer's home forum. More specifically, a panel consisting of Chief Judge Prost and Circuit Judges Newman and Dyk held that the Northern District of California had specific personal jurisdiction over a German patent owner, Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, that, as a nonpracticing entity and in accordance with its usual practice, mailed notice to the alleged infringer, Xilinx, Inc., that it was infringing and should consider taking a license. After Papst mailed that notice, Papst representatives traveled to California and met with Xilinx representatives to discuss Papst's allegations and potential licensing. When no agreement was reached, Xilinx filed a declaratory judgment suit in the Northern District seeking a declaration of invalidity and noninfringement. Papst moved to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction or to transfer to the District of Delaware, where Papst had filed an infringement suit against Xilinx.

The district court granted Papst's motion to dismiss. It held that there was no basis for general jurisdiction. As to specific jurisdiction, relying on Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int'l Co., 552 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the district court held that asserting jurisdiction did not comport with "fair play and substantial justice." See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 320 (1945). The district court reasoned that under Federal Circuit law, attempts to license patents are insufficient or even irrelevant. Although Papst had sued others in California for allegedly infringing other patents, the court also deemed those suits irrelevant.

The district court's decision is not surprising based on Federal Circuit precedents. In Red Wing, the Federal Circuit held that the district court lacked in personam jurisdiction over a patent owner/defendant in a declaratory judgment suit because asserting jurisdiction based on only the defendant's sending cease-and-desist letters would not comport with "fair play and substantial justice." The court explained, "Principles of fair play and substantial justice afford a patentee sufficient latitude to inform others of its patent rights without subjecting itself to jurisdiction in a foreign forum. A patentee should not subject itself to personal jurisdiction in a forum solely by informing a party who happens to be located there of suspected infringement." 148 F.3d at 1360-61. The court further explained that offering a license is tantamount to the settlement of litigation, and federal policy encourages settlement negotiations. Id. at 1361. Accord Avocent, 552 F.3d at 1340.

Even more pertinent is Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Technology Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Autogenomics, like Xilinx, was a declaratory judgment suit filed by a California company against an alien patent owner that had accused the California company of infringement (via email) and then sent two representatives to California for unsuccessful licensing negotiations. The alien patent owner, Oxford, appears to have had greater contacts with California than did Papst, since Oxford was not a nonpracticing entity, granted nonexclusive licenses and one exclusive license to about ten California companies regarding its microarray technology; granted a nonexclusive license of the patent-in-suit to a California company; had a supply agreement to purchase arrays from a California company for Oxford's use or resale; had sold 20 microarrays to a California company for $7,600 (about 1% of its annual revenue); had attended four scientific conferences in California, the last of which focused on the technology of the patent-in-suit; and had issued a statement that it had a broad licensing policy for its patents. The district court in the Autogenomics case, like the district court in Xilinx, held on the basis of Red Wing that it lacked in personam jurisdiction over the alien patent owner, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. In both Autogenomics and Avocent, however, Judge Newman, a member of the unanimous panel in Xilinx, vigorously dissented.

The Federal Circuit in Xilinx distinguished Red Wing and reversed the district court's holding that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction, but the court did not attempt to distinguish Autogenomics, even though it relied on Autogenomics for some of the controlling legal principles. Applying the same legal test it applied in its previous cases but reaching a different conclusion, the court observed that because California's long-arm statute permits service of process to the full extent permitted by the due process clause, specific personal jurisdiction exists if the defendant purposefully directed its activities at residents of the forum, the claim arises out of or relates to the defendant's activities with the forum, and the assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. Slip op. at 8-9. Citing Avocent, the court explained that the contacts relevant to the minimum contacts are those that the patentee purposefully directs at the forum that relate in a material way to enforcing or defending the patent. Id. at 9.

Thus, applying the same test for specific personal jurisdiction as in Red Wing and its progeny, the court in Xilinx reasoned, "[T]here is no question that Papst has the required minimum contacts with California. Papst purposefully directed its activities to California when it sent multiple notice letters to Xilinx and traveled there to discuss Xilinx's alleged patent infringement and potential licensing arrangements." Id. at 10. But now the court found it more significant that representatives of Papst visited the forum for negotiations with Xilinx. "As the Supreme Court has explained, 'physical entry into the State—either by the defendant in person or through an agent . . . —is certainly a relevant contact.'" Id. (quoting Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1122 (2014)).

As to the remaining "reasonable and fair" prong of the in personam jurisdiction inquiry, the court observed that if the defendant had the required minimum contacts with the forum, a court should consider other factors, including circumstances beyond those relevant to the minimum contacts, such as the burden on the defendant, the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient relief, the judicial system's interest in the most efficient resolution of the controversy, and the states' interest in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Id. at 12-13 (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985)). Moreover, the court noted that where the necessary minimum contacts exist, there is a presumption that in personam jurisdiction over the defendant is reasonable, and the defendant has the burden of presenting a compelling case to the contrary.

The court held that Papst failed to carry that burden. It reasoned that Xilinx had an interest in litigating in its home forum instead of in the Eastern District of Virginia under 35 U.S.C. § 293 (slip op. at 13 & n.3), that California had a substantial interest in protecting its residents from unwarranted claims of infringement (id. at 14), that jurisdiction over Xilinx in California would be efficient (id.), and that there would be no conflict with the interests of any other state because the uniform federal patent law would govern regardless of the forum (id.). Finally, the court reasoned that Papst had not demonstrated that requiring it to litigate in California would be unduly burdensome. Id. at 17.

As noted above, the court distinguished its holding in Red Wing. Specifically, it observed that Papst did not merely send letters to Xilinx, but sent representatives to California for in-person negotiations. But, as also noted above, the court did not attempt to distinguish Autogenomics, which also involved an alien patent owner that sent representatives to California for in-person negotiations. The court cited other factors distinguishing Red Wing, however, namely Papst's status as a nonpracticing entity that inherently must litigate its patents in jurisdictions far from its home (but which minimizes its contacts with the forum) and Papst's filing at least seven previous patent infringement suits in California.

The apparent shift that at least this panel's reasoning reflects is evidenced most clearly in the penultimate paragraph of the opinion:

In light of the totality of circumstances present in this case, this is not "one of the 'rare' situations in which sufficient minimum contacts exist but where the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable." . . . In other words, there is simply no "compelling case" here that personal jurisdiction over Papst is unreasonable. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477.

Slip op. at 18 (citation omitted). Unless the court takes the issue up en banc or the Supreme Court enters the fray, patent owners and alleged infringers will both have authorities they can cite when in personam jurisdiction is contested under circumstances similar to those in Autogenomics and Xilinx.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions