Jurisdictional issues in Breckenridge v. Metabolite
The CAFC tackled jurisdictional issues in the case Breckenridge v. Metabolite without mentioning the patents at issue, which concerned methods for treatment using B vitamins, not unlike the case recently heard by the US Supreme Court in which Metabolite was a party. Yes, the CAFC cited Burger King, 471 U.S. 462. Globetrotter, 362 F.3d 1367 is also cited.
Breckinridge argued the district court erred in using Federal Circuit law, rather than CA11 law, to the jurisdiction issue. Breckenridge lost on that point, but won overall. The district court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Metabolite. There is relevant discussion of cease-and-desist letters within the case.
Breckenridge prevailed on the point that, although there was an assertion of exclusively licensed FORMULATIONS, the patents pertained only to METHODS of treatment.
Overall, not a good decision for Metabolite.
The Metabolite product is FOLTZ, and pertinent patents may include US 6,528,496; 6,297,224; 6,207,651; 5,795,873.
Breckinridge argued the district court erred in using Federal Circuit law, rather than CA11 law, to the jurisdiction issue. Breckenridge lost on that point, but won overall. The district court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Metabolite. There is relevant discussion of cease-and-desist letters within the case.
Breckenridge prevailed on the point that, although there was an assertion of exclusively licensed FORMULATIONS, the patents pertained only to METHODS of treatment.
Overall, not a good decision for Metabolite.
The Metabolite product is FOLTZ, and pertinent patents may include US 6,528,496; 6,297,224; 6,207,651; 5,795,873.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 6:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home