Federal Circuit Says Gilstrap’s Grant of CA Transfer to Chinese Company was Improper

In a precedent order yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granted Mandams’ writ petition to vacate Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s transfer of two cases from the Eastern District of Texas to California. The petition he filed by Stingray IP Solutions, LLP was opposed by TP-Link Technologies, a Chinese company that Stingray has accused of infringing its patents.

Stingray first filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas, which TP-Link dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction or moved to move the lawsuit to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 USC § 1406. . Section 1406, Stingray has filed a power of attorney with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. “Only as to the question of whether TP-Link’s unilateral post-litigation consent to personal jurisdiction in another state (California) precluded application of Rule 4(k)(2).”

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) states:

“For claims arising under federal law, service of a subpoena or submission of a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over the defendant if:

(A) Defendants are not subject to the jurisdiction of any state court of general jurisdiction.When

(B) Exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States. ”

The Federal Circuit’s opinion noted that district courts were “widely divided” on whether a foreign defendant could override Rule 4(k)(2) personal jurisdiction by unilaterally agreeing to litigation in another district. “There are.” The CAFC explained that the split warrants a review of Mandams. “Resolving this disagreement is important because it “reduces widespread disagreement about the sentencing.”[is] basic legal standards[]’ said the court. At Micron Tech., Inc..

TP-Link argued that Mandams Relief was inappropriate for rulings on Section 1406 motions because the final judgment could be appealed, but the Federal Circuit stated:[w]While this is usually true, there may be “narrow circumstances” in which Mandams relief may be granted because it is “important to the proper administration of justice,” as we have already explained. ”

TP-Link also stated that the Rule 4(k)(2) issue was not properly filed with the CAFC because Stingray did not properly file it with the District Court, and was therefore forfeited, stating that Stingray was in the Central District of California. claimed that he could have filed a lawsuit against Regardless of the agreement, the CAFC has dismissed both of these arguments.

Turning to the merits, the Federal Circuit focused on the so-called denial requirements of Rule 4(k)(2). It requires that “the defendant is not subject to the jurisdiction of any state court of general jurisdiction.” Citing previous Federal Circuit and Supreme Court case law to support its view, the court explained that post-litigation unilateral consent does not satisfy the defendants’ burden under the denial requirement.

“[W]e states that “the defendant’s burden under the denial requirement includes identifying the court in which the plaintiff could have sued, i.e., the court in which, regardless of consent, jurisdiction would have been appropriate at the time of filing.” I am sure that it is accompanied by …the defendant (such as TP -Link) waives the application of Rule 4(k)(2) and “achieves transfer to a forum deemed more favorable (or unfavorable to the other party).” You cannot simply use a “unilateral consent form” to

Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the district court’s transfer order, stating:[i]If further proceedings consistent with this order are taken, the district court will rule that TP-Link will be denied rule 4(k)(2) because Stingray “could have sued” in the Central District. may decide that it is necessary to evaluate whether it is possible to satisfy It has nothing to do with his TP-Link post-litigation consent in California. “

Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 12047087
Copyright:naraytrace