Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Willowood, LLC
United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
139 F. Supp. 3d 722 (2015)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Willowood Limited (W-Limited) (defendant), a Chinese business with its principal place of business in Hong Kong, bought and sold pesticides outside the United States. W-Limited did not have any physical assets or employees in the United States. According to a W-Limited press release, W-Limited formed a wholly owned subsidiary, Willowood USA, LLC (W-USA) (defendant), to market and sell azoxystrobin in the United States. W-USA was registered and based in Oregon. The founder, majority owner, and manager of W-Limited was featured on W-USA’s website as a member of W-USA’s team. W-USA purchased azoxystrobin solely from W-Limited and imported it into the United States, where W-USA processed it and sold it in fungicide products. W-USA registered the use of azoxystrobin with the Environmental Protection Agency. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (Syngenta) (plaintiff), the patent holder for azoxystrobin, filed suit against W-Limited and W-USA in North Carolina federal court for patent infringement, among other things. W-Limited moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In support, W-Limited suggested that Oregon might have personal jurisdiction. No evidence was presented that W-Limited directed W-USA to sell azoxystrobin in North Carolina.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Eagles, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.