Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
617 F.3d 1296, 96 U.S.P.Q.2d 1104 (2010)
- Written by Sara Adams, JD
Facts
Maersk Contractors USA, Inc. (Maersk) (defendant), an American company, owned a rig. After negotiations occurred in Norway, Maersk signed a contract with a Texas corporation, Statoil Gulf Mexico LLC (Statoil), to allow Statoil to use the rig. The contract signing also occurred in Norway. The contract stated that the rig would primarily operate in the United States’ Gulf of Mexico area and that the rig would be delivered to Statoil in the United States. Before delivery, Maersk altered the rig in an attempt to avoid an infringement claim by Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. (Transocean) (plaintiff). Transocean sued Maersk in federal court for patent infringement, arguing liability for the contract involving the rig and the offer to enter into the contract. Neither party disputed that an offer to sell was extended in Norway, but the parties disputed whether the rig that was sold in the contract was the patented invention. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement after determining there could be no liability for the contract of or offer to contract for use of the rig because the contract negotiations and execution occurred outside the United States. Transocean appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 819,000 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.
