Genetic Implant Systems, Inc. v. Core-Vent Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
123 F.3d 1455, 43 U.S.P.Q.2d 1786 (1997)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Gerald Niznick (defendant) invented dental implants patented under Patent No. 4,960,381 (the 381 patent). Niznick assigned the patent to his company, Core-Vent Corp. (defendant). Core-Vent was incorporated in Nevada, and its principal place of business was in California. Before the 381 patent was awarded, Core-Vent sold its dental implants directly in Washington State. Following the issuance of the 381 patent, Core-Vent entered into an exclusive distributorship agreement with Dentsply International, Inc. (Dentsply), a business incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Two Dentsply sales representatives operated in Washington. After the agreement was entered into, Dentsply made substantial sales in Washington of Core-Vent products that were covered in the 381 patent. Genetic Implant Systems, Inc., (Genetic) (defendant), a Washington corporation, also sold dental-implant products. Core-Vent sent Genetic several cease-and-desist letters, accusing Genetic of infringing on the 381 patent and refused a settlement offer extended by Genetic. Genetic filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, requesting a declaratory judgment finding that the 381 patent was not infringed and was invalid. Core-Vent and Niznick filed a motion to dismiss, asserting a lack of personal jurisdiction over Core-Vent in Washington. The district court granted the motion, and Genetic appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lourie, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.