Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
792 F.3d 1373, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1569 (2015)
Facts
Celgard, LLC (plaintiff) held a patent on separator technology used in rechargeable batteries for both electric vehicles and consumer electronics. Celgard brought an infringement action against SK Innovation Company, Ltd. (SKI) (defendant), a Korean company, in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Celgard argued that SKI had purposefully directed sales and offers of sale to customers in North Carolina. SKI moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it had no knowledge of sales channels in North Carolina. A magistrate judge found that there was no basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over SKI and recommended granting the motion to dismiss, which the district court did. Celgard appealed to the United States District Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Celgard argued that purposeful direction of sales was evidenced by Kia dealers’ advertisements for a new Kia electric vehicle, which allegedly used SKI-made separators. Celgard also argued that personal jurisdiction was appropriate under a stream-of-commerce theory because consumer electronics sold in North Carolina used SKI separators, though Celgard provided no evidence of these separators being found in the state. Compliance with the North Carolina long-arm statute was not in dispute.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reyna, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 711,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
