December 19, 2018
Authored and Edited by Jonathan J. Fagan; Samhitha Muralidhar Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Jack Henry & Associates, Inc., et al. v. Plano Encryption Technologies LLC, 2016-2700 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2018), the Court reversed and remanded the district court and held that infringement enforcement letters sufficed to establish personal jurisdiction, and therefore venue, in a declaratory judgment (DJ) action. Plano Encryption Technologies (PET) describes its “sole business is to enforce its intellectual property.” To that end, PET sent infringement enforcement letters to eleven Texas banks in the Northern District of Texas. PET’s registered address was in the Eastern District of Texas. After the banks’ indemnitor brought a DJ action in the Northern District, PET moved for—and was granted—dismissal for lack of venue. The district court reasoned that under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d), which governs the residency of corporations in states with multiple districts like Texas, PET was not subject to venue in the Northern District because it was not subject to personal jurisdiction there.
On appeal, the Court reversed and remanded, finding that personal jurisdiction, and therefore venue, would be reasonable and fair in the Northern District. The Court rejected PET’s argument that Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998) or Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., 552 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) created a “special rule” against infringement enforcement letters establishing jurisdiction in a DJ action. Instead, the Court found that PET had purposefully directed its activities to Northern District businesses and failed to make a “compelling case” that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable and unfair.
Judge Stoll, joined by Judge Wallach, additionally wrote that the court should more directly address Red Wing Shoe and its progeny as contrary to Supreme Court precedent for suggesting that a comprehensive analysis of fairness factors is not required in cases involving infringement enforcement letters.
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.