Certain Patent Activity Is Sufficient to Confer U.S. Jurisdiction over Foreign Entity

In Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. v. Laboklin GMBH & Co. KG, No. 2018-2056 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that certain asserted claims were directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit further affirmed that foreign-based appellees were subject to the district court’s jurisdiction.

Germany-based Laboklin sent Genetic Veterinary Sciences a cease-and-desist letter identifying itself as the exclusive licensee of Swiss-based University of Bern’s patent.  At the time, Laboklin held sublicensing agreements in Michigan and California. Genetic Veterinary Sciences filed a declaratory judgment claim asserting invalidity under § 101 in the Eastern District of Virginia.  The district court denied a motion to dismiss for lack jurisdiction, and found the claims invalid under § 101.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that Laboklin’s letter and sublicensing agreements provided the “minimum contacts” necessary to establish personal jurisdiction and that such jurisdiction was “reasonable and fair” in light of their patent enforcement and sublicensing agreements. The Federal Circuit determined that University engaged in “commercial activity” when it obtained the patent and consented to Laboklin’s cease-and-desist letter; holding that such activity waived any sovereign immunity that University might have otherwise held. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s substantive analysis of § 101 and held the particular claims were directed to “nothing more than” observing a natural law.