Court Opinion

ID: 3196853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-04-22 15:01:26.538852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:09.250412
License: Public Domain

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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, Voor-
hees & Sease, P.L.C., Des Moines, IA, argued for plaintiff-
appellant. Also represented by ROBERT SCOTT JOHNSON,
EDMUND J. SEASE.

   JUSTIN CARL PFEIFFER, Ajamie LLP, Houston, TX, ar-
gued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by DONA
SZAK.
                ______________________
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 jurisdic-
tion. We, therefore, affirm.
                        AFFIRMED