Court Opinion

ID: 9452419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:40:16.445992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:12.639017
License: Public Domain

*159FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
The purpose of this concurring opinion is to suggest, at least, that the district court had jurisdiction, founded on diversity, to adjudicate the claims for infringement of foreign patents. In all other respects I join in the opinion of which Senior Circuit Judge Duffy is the author.
Is a cause of action for infringement of a patent a so-called transitory cause of action which may be adjudicated by the courts of a sovereign other than the one which granted the patent? If so, does it not follow that where such cause of action arose in a nation other than the United States, it is cognizable in the courts of states of the United States, or in United States courts where diversity exists?
An action for infringement of a patent is classified by American courts as a tort.1 Generally, “a personal action may be brought in any place where the requisite service upon the defendant may be had.” 2 Theoretically, it is possible for a state to regard almost any sort of extrastate cause of action as local, but the current trend is toward readier enforcement of claims arising under foreign laws.3
Even when an extrastate tort is transitory, there are several possible reasons why a court cannot, or, in its discretion, will not, assume jurisdiction. First, the court may feel that the claim is based on penal or revenue laws, or that it involves some other form of foreign governmental interest.4 Secondly, the local judicial machinery may not be suitable to enforcement of the foreign based claim.5 Thirdly, the action may be contrary to the public policy of the forum.6 Fourthly, the forum state may be precluded from passing on an “act of state.” 7 And lastly, the court may decline to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens.8
One author has considered the question and concluded that, “If, however, such a [patent] right is tortiously invaded in the territory where it is protected, a claim for damages on this ground may well be brought in a foreign court having jurisdiction over the defendant.”9 A *160well-known English author states that, “If X does in France an act by which he infringes A’s French patent * * * ” it is an “open question” whether A can successfully sue X in England.10
If the question just put were answered in the affirmative, the same reasoning which permitted A to sue in England would permit him to do so in the courts of a state of the United States, or in a district court of the United States if the conditions for diversity jurisdiction were fulfilled.

. Heath v. A. B. Dick Co. (7th Cir. 1958), 253 F.2d 30, 34.

. Goodrich, Handbook of the Conflict of Laws 177 (4th ed. Scoles 1964).

. Leflar, The Law of the Conflict of Laws 80 (1959). See also, Curry, The Constitution and the “Transitory” Cause of Action (1959), 73 Harv.L.Rev. 36, 66-9, 73 Harv.L.Rev. 268, 272-303; Looper, Jurisdiction over Immovables, 40 Minn. L.Rev. 191 (1956); Kuhn, Local and Transitory Actions in Private International Law, 66 U.Pa.L.Rev. 301 (1918); Goodrich, supra note 2, at 177-8. Compare, Ehrenzweig, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws 103 (1962 ed.).

. Leflar, supra note 3, at 83; Leflar, Ex-trastate Enforcement of Penal and Governmental Claims, 46 Harv.L.Rev. 193 (1932); Goodrich, supra note 2, at 18, 178.

. Goodrich, supra note 2, at 20-1; Leflar, supra note 3, at 85-6.

. Goodrich, supra note 2, at 14-17; Le-flar, supra note 3, at 80; Paulsen and Sovern, “Public Policy” in the Conflict of Laws, 56 Colum.L.Rev. 959 (1956) ; Katzenbach, Conflicts on an Unruly Horse: Reciprocal Claims and Tolerances, 65 Yale L.J. 1087 (1956).

. The “act of state” doctrine prevents the courts of one country from sitting in judgment on the act of another government done within its own territory. Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964), 376 U.S. 398, 84 S.Ct. 923, 11 L.Ed.2d 804. The doctrine does not apply to acts predominantly private in nature, but to acts where the state itself, as a state, has an interest, e. g., expropriation. See Zander, The Act of State Doctrine, 53 Am.J.Int.L. 826 (1959); Comment, The Act of State Doctrine— Its Relation to Private and International Law, 62 Colum.L.Rev. 1278 (1962).

. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947), 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055;. Blair, The Doctrine of Eorum Non Conveniens in Anglo-American Law, 29 Colum.L.Rev. 1 (1929); Goodrich, supra note 2, at 15-17, 140-1; Leflar, supra note 3, 87-90 (1959); Ehrenzweig, supra note 3, at 120-137.

. 2 Rabel, The Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Study 295 (1947).

. Dicey, Conflict of Laws 951 (7th ed. Morris 1958).