{"id":674,"date":"2016-04-01T14:36:45","date_gmt":"2016-04-01T18:36:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=674"},"modified":"2016-04-02T20:33:53","modified_gmt":"2016-04-03T00:33:53","slug":"if-you-want-to-contest-jurisdiction-dont-file-a-counterclaim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=674","title":{"rendered":"If You Want to Contest Jurisdiction, Don’t File a Counterclaim"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Microsoft Corporation v, GeoTag, Inc.<\/em>, [2015-1140] (April 1, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction (although on different grounds) and affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement.<\/p>\n

In response to suits against their customers in the Eastern District of Texas, Microsoft and Google brought a declaratory judgment action against GeoTag for a declaration that\u00a0U.S. Patent No. 5,930,474 is invalid and not infringed. \u00a0GeoTag filed a motion to dismiss and an answer and counterclaim for infringement of the ‘474 patent, arguing that the infringement action was a compulsory counterclaim which could not confer jurisdiction on the original declaratory judgment action. The district court, applying Third Circuit law, found jurisdiction because the counterclaim was not a compulsory counterclaim. \u00a0The Federal Circuit agreed that there was jurisdiction, but applying Federal Circuit, rather than Third Circuit law, and finding jurisdiction based upon GeoTag’s counterclaim, regardless of whether or not it was compulsory. \u00a0The Federal Circuit found that the district court retained subject matter jurisdiction\u00a0over GeoTag\u2019s patent infringement counterclaims\u00a0pursuant to \u00a7 1338(a), such that it\u00a0need not determine\u00a0whether the District Court properly found that it had\u00a0jurisdiction over Google\u2019s First Amended Complaint.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Microsoft Corporation v, GeoTag, Inc., [2015-1140] (April 1, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction (although on different grounds) and affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement. In response to suits against their customers in the Eastern … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-674","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-jurisdiction"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/674","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=674"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/674\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":676,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/674\/revisions\/676"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=674"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=674"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=674"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}