District Court Holds That Defendant's Supplier-Indemnitor Has Standing To Intervene To Assert Claims Against Plaintiff Because its Wholly Extraterritorial Conduct Might Still Support a Claim Against it for Contributory Infringement

Industrial Technology Research Institute v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of California, February 5, 2015

LG Display (LGD) intervened in a patent infringement action that had been brought against its affiliate, LG Electronics (LGE), asserting that it was LGE's supplier. LGD filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the patents at bar were not infringed or were unenforceable. The plaintiff moved to dismiss, challenging LGD's standing to sue because all of LGD's actions occurred outside of the U.S. LGD responded that its standing was based on its obligation to indemnify LGE in connection with the plaintiff's claims, and that it was potentially liable for contributory infringement despite its location and activities outside the U.S.

The U.S. District Court in California denied the motion to dismiss on both grounds. As relevant here, it cited authority from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that "where a foreign party, with the requisite knowledge and intent, employs extraterritorial means to actively induce acts of direct infringement that occur within the United States," induced infringement may be found.

RETURN TO Spring 2015 Edition

RETURN TO The World in U.S. Courts Home Page

U.S. Laws Discussed

Editorial Board