By: Karin C. Khan

            In its de novo review of whether the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had personal jurisdiction over Defendant C Change Surgical, LLC (“CCS”), the Court of Appeals found that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Plaintiff Medical Solutions, Inc.’s (“MSI”) case against CCS for lack of personal jurisdiction.  In its patent infringement suit against CCS, MSI alleged that CCS had “used” an allegedly infringing product when it demonstrated such product during a trade show.

            MSI owns patents relating to technology of devices that can control the temperature of medical and surgical fluids in the operating room.  CCS had developed a device, called the “IntraTemp,” that controls the temperature of surgical fluids.  During a trade show in the District of Columbia (“D.C.”), CCS had its own booth where it demonstrated how the IntraTemp device functioned.  Later, two hospitals, in Maryland and Georgia, began using the IntraTemp device.  MSI also alleged that the hospitals’ use was as a direct result of CCS’s alleged marketing efforts at the trade show.  The district court did not find that CCS “used” MSI’s patented invention simply by displaying and demonstrating the IntraTemp.  Furthermore, the district court found that the two hospitals using the IntraTemp had learned of CCS’s device through other means and outside of D.C.  In addition, the Georgia hospital was using the IntraTemp for clinical evaluation and was not being charged for its use by CCS.

            The Court of Appeals only reviewed whether jurisdiction over CCS existed under D.C.’s long-arm statute.  According to D.C.’s long-arm statute, personal jurisdiction is proper over a non-resident defendant for causing a tortuous injury in D.C by an act or omission in D.C.  A tort could occur under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) if the Court found that CCS made “use” of the allegedly infringing device.