TruePosition, Inc. v. Andrew Corp.

TruePosition, Inc. v. Andrew Corp., 2009-1389 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2010) was decided today via a Rule 36 affirmance.  The curious thing about this case is that the oral argument took place back on February 5th.  Typically, Rule 36 opinions issue within a few days of oral argument.  The district court’s infringement judgment was for more than $48M.

The oral argument is interesting in that in addition to discussing standard setting issues, it also deals with when activities in the U.S. might constitute an offer for sale in the U.S. that is actually communicated in a foreign country to an offeree. [Listen].  One proposed hypothetical was the sending of an email with the offer details from the U.S. to the offeror’s agent in the foreign country, who would then communicate the offer to the offeree on foreign soil.

The appellant argued for application of Rotec Industries v. Mitsubishi Corp. et al., 215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000). [Link].

The entire oral argument is available here: [Listen].

The opinion is availble here: [Read].

Comments are closed.