35 U.S.C. § 293
Nonresident patentee; service and notice
Every patentee not residing in the United States may file in the Patent and Trademark Office a written designation stating the name and address of a person residing within the United States on whom may be served process or notice of proceedings affecting the patent or rights thereunder. If the person designated cannot be found at the address given in the last designation, or if no person has been designated, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia shall have jurisdiction and summons shall be served by publication or otherwise as the court directs. The court shall have the same jurisdiction to take any action respecting the patent or rights thereunder that it would have if the patentee were personally within the jurisdiction of the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 81
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Intern. Co., Ltd., 552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Intern. Co., Ltd., 552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “In addition to having personal jurisdiction over Avocent's patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 293 , and contrary to the dissent's suggestion, post at 1348-49, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia would have pendent personal jurisdiction over Avocent's…”
Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “See 35 U.S.C. § 293 . Because principal briefing had been completed in this case prior to our decision in Avocent , on December 19, 2008, we asked the parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing Avocent .”
Hanes Corp., a North Carolina Corp. v. Julien Millard, 531 F.2d 585 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “Out of this somewhat confused procedural background, appellants bring us the following claims: (1) appellants were not “patentees” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 293 and the District Court therefore lacked personal jurisdiction over them; (2) service of process was defective;…”
Purdue Rsch. Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 332 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2004). “Plaintiffs complaint asserts that the Court has personal jurisdiction over defendant under the federal patent long-arm statute, 35 U.S.C. § 293 . Defendant seeks dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction on the ground that the case is not one “respecting the…”
Riker Labs., Inc., a Corp. of Delaware v. Gist-Brocades N. v. a Corp. of the Netherlands, 636 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “The major issue in this appeal is whether 35 U.S.C. § 293 confers personal jurisdiction over a foreign patentee when allegations of patent misuse are made.”
Venmill Indus., Inc. v. ELM, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 3d 59 (D. Mass. 2015). “Thus, a defendant cannot avoid application of the rule by pointing to the federal forum designated by 35 U.S.C. § 293 . See id. (3) Whether exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the U.”
Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin & Parr, 574 F.3d 1403 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Claim Arises Under Federal Law This case was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District 3 This malpractice suit, where the patent owner is the plaintiff, is not a case to which 35 U.S.C. § 293 applies, where jurisdiction over a foreign patentee is…”
Nat'l Pat. Dev. Corp. v. T.J. Smith & Nephew Ltd., 877 F.2d 1003 (D.C. Cir. 1989). “RUTH BADER GINSBURG, Circuit Judge: This appeal calls on us to decide whether a federal long-arm statute, 35 U.S.C. § 293 *1004 (1982), authorizes the district court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a foreign holder of United States patents in a suit over ownership of…”
Hans Oetiker v. Jurid Werke, G. M. B. H, 556 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “The complaint alleged personal jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 293 (1970), 5 and set forth three counts.”
Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing Gmbh & Co. Kg, 848 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “See 35 U.S.C. § 293 . 4 .The court further held that the inclusion of offers to license the patents "within a cease- and-desist letter does not somehow convert that letter into something more than it was already.”
E.O.H.C. v. Sec'y United States Depart, 950 F.3d 177 (3rd Cir. 2020). “, 35 U.S.C. § 293 (vesting exclusive jurisdiction over foreign patentees in the Eastern District of Virginia).”
Edward F. Neidhart v. Neidhart S.A. The George Hyman Constr. Co. v. Spiroll Corp., Ltd, 510 F.2d 760 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “Both plaintiffs-appellants attempted service of process pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 293 . In Neidhart, District Court Judge Flannery granted summary judgment in favor of Neidhart S.”
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.