Endnotes:
1. 35 U.S.C. §271(a) (emphasis added).
2. This fact pattern is modeled after the facts in OptiGen v. International Genetics, 777 F.Supp.2d 390 (N.D.N.Y. 2011). The authors were counsel to OptiGen in this matter. The OptiGen matter settled prior to the writing of this article.
3. MEMC Electronic Materials v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon, 420 F.3d 1369, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
4. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling v. Maersk Contractors USA, 617 F.3d 1296, 1310-11 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also MEMC Electronic Materials, 420 F.3d at 1377 ("[I]n some cases the criterion for determining the location of 'sale' under §271(a) is not necessarily where legal title passes; the more familiar places of contracting and performance may take precedence over the passage of legal title.").
5. Wing Shing Products v. Simatelex Manufactory, 479 F.Supp.2d 388, 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
6. See, e.g., Fellowes v. Michilin Prosperity, 491 F.Supp.2d 571, 577-79 (E.D. Va. 2007); Ensign-Bickford v. ICI Explosives USA, 817 F.Supp. 1018, 1025-27 (D. Conn. 1993).
7. Transocean, 617 F.3d 1296, 1310.
8. Litecubes v. Northern Light Products, 523 F.3d 1353, 1369-71 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
9. Fellowes, 491 F.Supp.2d at 577-79.
Subscribe to New York Law Journal
