Jurisdiction over Foreign Patents Requires ? 1367(c) Analysis
February 02, 2007
The question before the Federal Circuit in Jan K. Voda, M.D. v. Cordis Corporation was whether where an accused infringer is shown to have moved its infringing activities offshore to Germany, the U.K. and elsewhere, does supplemental jurisdiction of the court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1367, permit an infringement determination under the parallel foreign patents, where all patents originate from a single Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application and have similar claims? As way of background, Dr. Voda held patents in the U.S., and through the PCT, relating generally to guiding catheters for use in interventional cardiology. Voda first sued Cordis, a U.S. based entity incorporated in Florida, for infringement of its U.S. patents in the Western District of Oklahoma and then moved to amend his complaint to add claims of infringement of the European, British, Canadian, French, and German foreign patents. Cordis opposed Voda's attempt to amend its complaint to add foreign patent infringement claims on the basis that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over such claims. The district court ultimately granted Voda's motion to amend, and Cordis subsequently appealed to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit held the district court abused its discretion in granting leave to amend based on 28 U.S.C. ? 1367(c), vacated the order, and remanded for further proceedings. In summary, the basis for the Federal Circuit's holding was that the district court failed to perform the required analysis pursuant to ? 1367(c) for considerations of comity; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and other exceptional circumstances. To read the full decision in Voda, M.D. v. Cordis Corp., click here.
Post has no comments.
Post a Comment

Captcha Image
Return to the Filewrapper Blog
  Newer Posts Older Posts  


The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.


McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.