2007年7月：MHLがE.D. TexasにVWに対する特許侵害を提起
2007年11月：VWがE.D. MichiganにMHLに対する確認訴訟を提起
2008年6月：E.D. MichiganはMHLのthe first to file doctrineに基づく事件のE.D. Texasへの移動を認める
2008年9月：CAFCはVWの請願を棄却（Opinion）
先の製造物責任に関する訴訟では、E.D. Texasを裁判管轄とする理由がまったくありませんでしたが、今回の特許訴訟ではそういうわけにはいきませんでした。特許訴訟の場合、例えば自動車のディーラーも被告に含めれば侵害発生地が拡大するわけですから侵害訴訟を提起する側としては裁判管轄を選びやすくなります。VWは初動を誤った（可能ならば、先に確認訴訟を起こすべきであった）ということですね。
以下はOpinionの抜粋です。
On Writ of Mandamus from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in case no. 07-CV-14992, Senior Judge John Corbett O’Meara.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Before MAYER, LOURIE, and DYK, Circuit Judges.MAYER, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (VW) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to vacate its orders transferring VW’s federal claims to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and to vacate its order dismissing VW’s state law claims.
Concerning the district court's decision to transfer the action, VW argues that the Michigan district court erred in transferring the Michigan action to Texas under § 1404(a) because VW does not believe that the Texas district court will have personal jurisdiction over some of the defendants and because VW believes that Texas is an inconvenient forum. Regarding personal jurisdiction, the district court disagreed, stating that VW was "merely stat[ing] that the Defendants do not reside in the Eastern District of Texas with no mention that a long-arm statute or minimal contacts analysis could allow for personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas." Counsel for MHL notes that Animatronics and the inventors consented to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas, and that the other defendant, McLaughlin Electronics, Inc., was not served with the complaint because it is defunct. Nonetheless, if the Eastern District of Texas were to dismiss any of the defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, VW could of course obtain review of that ruling later on appeal from any final judgment.
Concerning the district court's decision to transfer the action, VW argues that the Michigan district court erred in transferring the Michigan action to Texas under § 1404(a) because VW does not believe that the Texas district court will have personal jurisdiction over some of the defendants and because VW believes that Texas is an inconvenient forum. Regarding personal jurisdiction, the district court disagreed, stating that VW was "merely stat[ing] that the Defendants do not reside in the Eastern District of Texas with no mention that a long-arm statute or minimal contacts analysis could allow for personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas." Counsel for MHL notes that Animatronics and the inventors consented to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas, and that the other defendant, McLaughlin Electronics, Inc., was not served with the complaint because it is defunct. Nonetheless, if the Eastern District of Texas were to dismiss any of the defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, VW could of course obtain review of that ruling later on appeal from any final judgment.
)
投稿
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿