28 U.S.C. § 1694
Patent infringement action
In a patent infringement action commenced in a district where the defendant is not a resident but has a regular and established place of business, service of process, summons or subpoena upon such defendant may be made upon his agent or agents conducting such business.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1950–2021 · leading case: In Re Google LLC, 949 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
In Re Google LLC, 949 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020). “This is apparent from the service statute for patent cases, now cod- ified at 28 U.S.C. § 1694 . That provision originally ap- peared as the second sentence of a two-sentence statutory section whose first sentence is now the patent venue Case: 19-126 Document: 36 Page: 11 Filed:…”
Ruddies v. Auburn Spark Plug Co., 261 F. Supp. 648 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). “§ 1400 (b) (1964) 2 and 28 U.S.C. § 1694 (1964), 3 concluded that both statutes were jurisdictional.”
Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 17 F.4th 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “The patent service provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1694 , states that an agent “conducting” the de- fendant’s business can accept service in a district in which the defendant “has a regular and established place of busi- ness.”
The Welch Sci. Co. v. The Human Eng'g Inst., Inc., 416 F.2d 32 (7th Cir. 1970). “Defendant contends that because of the specific provision governing service of process in 28 U.S.C. § 1694 , Rule 4(d) (7) of the Fed.”
The Bobrick Corp. v. Am. Dispenser Co., Inc., 377 F.2d 334 (9th Cir. 1967). “” These quoted words appear in the patent jurisdiction section, 28 U.S.C. § 1694 , and the patent venue section 28 U.”
Solo Cup Co. v. Paper Mach. Corp., Ralph O. Martin & John R. Baumgartner, 359 F.2d 754 (7th Cir. 1966). “Solo’s argument that service was obtained on Baumgartner under 28 U.S.C. § 1694 by reason of service in Wisconsin on the defendant corporation, is not well taken.”
Japan Gas Lighter Ass'n v. Ronson Corp., 257 F. Supp. 219 (D.N.J. 1966). “, 1950), holding that the special process statute for patent infringement suits, 28 U.S.C. § 1694 , did not preclude plaintiff’s alternative reliance on Rule 4(d), F.”
Mcgah v. Vm Corp., 166 F. Supp. 662 (N.D. Ill. 1958). “, and by 28 U.S.C. § 1694 . Rule 4(d) (3) provides, in relevant part: “Upon a * * * foreign corporation * * * by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive…”
Union Asbestos & Rubber Co., by Change of Name Unarco Indus., Inc. v. Evans Prods. Co., 328 F.2d 949 (7th Cir. 1964). “; 28 U.S.C. § 1694 ; Millard v. Castle Baking Co.”
Am. Can Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 433 F. Supp. 333 (E.D. Wis. 1977). “28 U.S.C. § 1694 . Having denied the defendant’s motions to dismiss the action, the Court *338 must determine the defendant’s motion for transfer of the action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.”
Leach Co. v. Gen. Sani-Can Mfg. Corp., 393 F.2d 183 (7th Cir. 1968). “The district court denied the motion in an oral opinion on May 14, 1965 on the grounds that Midwest is the alter ego of appellant and that Midwest and Vincent Guiffrida were within the district for purposes of jurisdiction, venue and service of process. Appellant then filed a…”
Stanley Works v. Globemaster, Inc., 400 F. Supp. 1325 (D. Mass. 1975). “” 28 U.S.C. § 1694 is such a statute. It provides: In a patent infringement action commenced in a district where the defend- and is not a resident but has a regular and established place of business, service of process, summons or subpoena upon such defendant may be made upon…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.