CAFC Courts Federal Circuit Federal Circuit Review Guest Contributors IP News IPWatchdog Articles Jack Henry & Assocs. v. Plano Encryption Techs Judge Evan Wallach Judge Kara Stoll Judge Pauline Newman notice letters patent Patent Litigation Patent Venue Patents personal jurisdiction Technology venue

Sending Infringement Notice Letters May Create Personal Jurisdiction

Federal Circuit

Federal CircuitAmerica Courtroom of Appeals for the Federal Circuit just lately reversed a district courtroom’s grant of movement to dismiss a declaratory decide motion towards Plano Encryption Applied sciences LLC (PET). The district courtroom, which is located within the Northern District of Texas, held that PET’s contacts with the Northern district didn’t topic it to non-public jurisdiction and venue was thus improper. On attraction, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded for additional proceedings. See Jack Henry & Assocs., Inc. v. Plano Encryption Techs. LLC, No. 2016-2700, 2018 WL 6423448 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2018) (Earlier than Newman, Wallach, and Stoll, J.) (Opinion for the courtroom, Newman) (Further views filed by Stoll, J. and joined by Wallach, J.).

PET is a restricted legal responsibility firm registered to do enterprise all through Texas, and its registered tackle is in Plano, Texas, which is situated within the Japanese District of Texas. PET, which states that its “sole business is to enforce its intellectual property,” sued eleven banks, that are situated within the Northern District of Texas, for patent infringement.

Previous to bringing go well with, PET despatched a letter to every financial institution, inviting them to take non-exclusive licenses to PET’s patent portfolio. Every letter said that PET believed the corresponding financial institution was infringing PET’s patents by means of the financial institution’s cellular apps and on-line banking options, and PET included declare charts detailing the alleged infringement.

Jack Henry offers software program methods for every of the banks’ cellular apps and states that it’s indemnifying the banks for any legal responsibility for infringement. Jack Henry’s counsel wrote to PET, contesting PET’s infringement positions, questioning validity of PET’s patents, and requesting a gathering with PET and its counsel to debate the problems. PET didn’t reply to Jack Henry however as an alternative wrote to every financial institution, stating that “only your bank is accused of infringement.” Jack Henry and the banks then filed a declaratory motion within the Northern District of Texas. PET moved for dismissal, stating that venue is improper.

Venue in a multidistrict state, comparable to Texas, is topic to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, which holds partially that a “corporation shall be deemed to reside in any district in that State within which its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate State . . . .” The district courtroom granted PET’s movement for dismissal stating that PET’s actions don’t topic it to non-public jurisdiction within the Northern District as a result of “based on policy considerations unique to the patent context, letters threatening suit for patent infringement sent to the alleged infringer by themselves do not suffice to create personal jurisdiction.”


On attraction, the Federal Circuit first famous that willpower of venue is dominated by due course of issues, and since Texas’s long-arm statute extends to the bounds of federal constitutional due course of, solely the due course of inquiry is required to determine private jurisdiction. Additional, acts of soliciting enterprise in Texas have been deemed topic to the Texas Lengthy-Arm Statute.

Three related elements are weighed when making use of due course of to a willpower of particular jurisdiction and venue: (1) whether or not the defendant “purposefully directed” its actions at residents of the discussion board, (2) whether or not the declare “arises out of or relates to” the defendant’s actions inside the discussion board, and (three) whether or not assertion of private jurisdiction is “reasonable and fair.”

Throughout oral arguments on attraction, PET’s counsel “concede[d] that . . . the first two elements would be met by the mere sending of a letter into a forum.” Thus, the query right here is whether or not the train of private jurisdiction is cheap and truthful. PET, nevertheless, didn’t assert that jurisdiction within the Northern District is unreasonable or unfair.

Whereas evaluating the reasonableness and equity of private jurisdiction the Courtroom famous that private jurisdiction “is not susceptible to mechanical application” however as an alternative requires analysis of the precise details of a case. Within the on the spot case, the Courtroom discovered that PET has undertaken a licensing program, with threats of litigation, directed to banks situated in and conducting enterprise within the Northern District, and “PET’s contacts with banks in the Northern District are in conduct of PET’s only business, that of licensing and litigating its patents.”

PET cited Pink Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) and Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., 552 F3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008) for the proposition that patent enforcement letters can by no means present a foundation for jurisdiction in a declaration judgment motion, however the Courtroom disagreed with PET’s interpretation of these instances, stating “Red Wing Shoe and Avocent did not create such a rule, and doing so would contradict the [Supreme] Court’s directive to ‘consider a variety of interests’ in assessing whether jurisdiction would be fair.”

Furthermore, controlling precedent supplies that “where a defendant who purposefully has directed his activities at forum residents seeks to defeat jurisdiction, he must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” Thus, “[t]he burden befalls PET . . . to make a ‘compelling case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction in the Northern District would be unreasonable and unfair.” PET, nevertheless, by no means argued that litigating within the Northern district can be unduly burdensome or in any other case unfair.

Accordingly, the Courtroom discovered that PET met the minimal contacts requirement of private jurisdiction with out offense to due course of such that private jurisdiction and venue within the Northern District are correct. Thus, the Courtroom reversed the dismissal for improper venue.

PET additionally challenged the standing of Jack Henry, arguing that PET didn’t accuse Jack Henry of infringement and that there isn’t a adversity between PET and Jack Henry. Jack Henry said that it agreed to indemnify the banks for any patent infringement legal responsibility. The Courtroom discovered that Jack Henry, because the provider of the accused methods and indemnitor of the banks, has standing to take part within the motion, and the Courtroom remanded to the Northern District of Texas for additional proceedings.

Decide Stoll, joined by Decide Wallach, agreed with the Courtroom’s judgment however wrote individually to deal with Pink Wings Shoe’s assertion that “principles of fair play and substantial justice afford a patentee sufficient latitude to inform others of its patent rights without subject itself to jurisdiction in a foreign forum.” Decide Stoll famous that this assertion has been interpreted to imply that the “sending of infringement letters would satisfy the minimum contacts requirement of due process except for policy considerations unique to the patent context,” which contravenes “the Supreme Court’s warning against creating special rules for patent cases.” Furthermore, “the Supreme Court has made it clear that ‘[o]nce it has been decided that a defendant purposefully established minimum contacts within the forum State, these contacts may be considered in light of other factors to determine whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice,’” however Decide Stoll struggles to harmonize these directions with the instances that point out, the place patent enforcement letters are involved, a complete evaluation of the equity elements offered by the Supreme Courtroom will not be required. Thus, Decide Stoll believes that, “[t]o the extent that Red Wing or its progeny fail to adequately assess these factors, [Judge Stoll] suggest[s] they be reconsidered as directly contrary to established Supreme Court precedent.”

Take Away

Whereas private jurisdiction and venue are fact-dependent inquiries, sending patent enforcement letters to a recipient situated and doing enterprise in a discussion board may be sufficient to determine private jurisdiction over the sending social gathering within the discussion board such that venue is correct within the discussion board. Such a discovering could also be notably true when the sending get together’s “sole business is to enforce its intellectual property.”


Picture Supply: Gene Quinn

Robert Schaffer

Robert Schaffer

is an mental property companion at Troutman Sanders. Bob applies greater than 30 years of expertise to IP counseling and litigation. His work consists of patent procurement, strategic planning and transactional recommendation, due diligence investigations, district courtroom patent instances, and Federal Circuit appeals. He often handles complicated and high-profile home and worldwide patent portfolios, mental property agreements and licensing, IP evaluations for collaborations, mergers, and acquisitions. In disputed courtroom instances Bob’s work consists of representing and counseling shopper in ANDA litigations, complicated patent infringement instances and appeals, and multidistrict and worldwide instances. In disputed Patent Workplace issues his work consists of representing and counseling shoppers in interferences, reexaminations, reissues, post-grant proceedings, and in European Oppositions. For extra info and to contact Bob please go to his profile web page on the Troutman Sanders web site.

Robert Schaffer

Joseph Robinson

has over 20 years of expertise in all elements of mental property regulation. He focuses his apply within the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical gadget fields. His follow encompasses litigation, together with Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution. He has served as litigation counsel in quite a lot of patent and trademark disputes in many various jurisdictions, and has additionally served as appellate counsel earlier than the Courtroom of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Joe additionally focuses on complicated inter partes issues earlier than the united statesPatent and Trademark Workplace, inventorship disputes, reexaminations and reissues. His expertise consists of quite a few interferences, a specific benefit in new U.S. Patent and Trademark Workplace post-grant proceedings. He additionally counsels on patent–associated U.S. Meals and Drug Administration points, together with citizen petitions, Orange Guide itemizing, and trademark points. For extra info and to contact Joe please go to his profile web page on the Troutman Sanders web site.