Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01856/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01856-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Extended Disc International, Ltd.
Appellee
Target Training International, Ltd.
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TARGET TRAINING INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

EXTENDED DISC INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1856

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Texas in No. 4:11-cv-02531, Judge 

Vanessa D. Gilmore.

______________________ 

Decided: April 22, 2016

______________________ 

CHRISTINE MARIE LEBRON-DYKEMAN, McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C., Des Moines, IA, argued for plaintiffappellant. Also represented by ROBERT SCOTT JOHNSON,

EDMUND J. SEASE. 

JUSTIN CARL PFEIFFER, Ajamie LLP, Houston, TX, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by DONA 

SZAK. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-1856 Document: 56-2 Page: 1 Filed: 04/22/2016
2 TARGET TRAINING INT’L v. EXTENDED DISC INT’L

Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and O’MALLEY, Circuit 

Judges.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Target Training International, Ltd. (“TTI”) 

appeals from the district court’s dismissal of its suit

against Extended DISC International Oy Ltd. (“EDI”) for 

infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,249,372 (“the ’372 

patent”). The court dismissed the suit for lack of personal 

jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(2). In the companion case, No. 2015-1873, which 

involves the same patent, we affirmed another district

court’s dismissal of that case as moot. At oral argument

for this case, counsel conceded that for the purposes of the 

jurisdictional inquiry, we should look to the original, now 

canceled claims of the patent. Because the new patent 

claims added in the reexamination of the patent are not at 

issue in this case, we find the existing case moot for 

similar reasons as the companion case. Because the suit 

is moot, we need not reach the issue of personal jurisdiction. We, therefore, affirm. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1856 Document: 56-2 Page: 2 Filed: 04/22/2016