Clarkson-11E: Case Problem with Sample Answer s3

Clarkson-11e: Case Problem with Sample Answer Chapter 52: International Law in a Global Economy

52–7. Case Problem with Sample Answer

Jan Voda, M.D., a resident of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, owns three U.S. patents related to guiding catheters for use in interventional cardiology, as well as corresponding foreign patents issued by the European Patent Office, Canada, France,

Germany, and Great Britain. Voda filed a suit in a federal district court against Cordis

Corp., a U.S. firm, alleging infringement of the U.S. patents under U.S. patent law and of the corresponding foreign patents under the patent law of the various foreign countries. Cordis admitted, “[T]he XB catheters have been sold domestically and internationally since 1994. The XB catheters were manufactured in Miami Lakes, from

1993 to 2001 and have been manufactured in Juarez, Mexico, since 2001.” Cordis argued, however, that Voda could not assert infringement claims under foreign patent law because the court did not have jurisdiction over such claims. Which of the important international legal principles discussed in this chapter would be most likely to apply in this case? How should the court apply it? Explain. [Voda v. Cordis Corp., 476 F.3d 887

(Fed.Cir. 2007)]

Sample Answer:

According to the principle of comity, which is most likely to be applied in this case, the court would not have jurisdiction. Comity refers to the spirit of cooperation in which a domestic court approaches the resolution of cases that involve the laws and interests of other sovereign states. Under this principle, the laws of one nation are given effect in another, so far as they do not prejudice the rights of the other’s government or citizens.

In the context of foreign patent infringement claims, there is no reason for a U.S. court to supplant a British or other foreign court in interpreting and enforcing a British or other foreign patent. Thus, in this case, the adjudication of Voda's foreign patent infringement claims should be left to the sovereigns that created the rights. The court should rule that it does not have jurisdiction to hear those claims.