1. “Did the district court err in concluding that it cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over PerDiemCo even though (a) PerDiemCo expressly and repeatedly accused Trimble, a company based in northern California, of infringing PerDiemCo’s patents; (b) the district court itself recognized that Appellants had established the minimum contacts necessary for personal jurisdiction; and (c) PerDiemCo failed to establish a ‘compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable,’ as required by Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)? ”
2. “Did Red Wing Shoe compel the district court’s conclusion that it cannot exercise jurisdiction over PerDiemCo, despite the Supreme Court’s opinions in Burger King and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), and this Court’s recognition of Red Wing Shoe’s limits in Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. v. Plano Encryption Technologies LLC, 910 F.3d 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. v. LABOKLIN GmbH, 933 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2019)?”
3. “If adherence to the Red Wing Shoe line of cases would compel affirmance of the district court’s ruling, should this Court overrule those cases as imposing rigid, patent-specific rules that are contrary to controlling Supreme Court law and unwarranted by the public-policy justifications cited in Red Wing Shoe?”
“We conclude that Red Wing does not preclude personal jurisdiction on the facts of this case and that the district court had personal jurisdiction over PerDiemCo.”
