Careers

Diversity

With 18 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Services

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

Ohio Clock

Hallway with a grandfather clock displayed

The Weekly Hill Update

Attorney Intel Names Jonathan Forman as a Top 25 Financial Services and Insurance Attorney of 2025

Blockchain Monitor

Blockchain Monitor - Planet earth in outer space with network connection and sunlight.

Weekly Blockchain Blog – May 12, 2025

2025 BHIPP - BakerHostetler IP Perspective

Make It Plain: Clarity Regarding Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

Historically, patentees needed not worry too much about whether their mere pre-suit communications sent from afar into a jurisdiction created personal jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment action. See e.g., Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc., 326 F.3d 1194, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (ruling that cease-and-desist letter sent by patentee into forum did not create personal jurisdiction for noninfringement declaratory judgment count). Patentees were free to send these communications to not only generate licensing revenue but also establish knowledge to support a later willful infringement claim without any declaratory-judgment risk. But recently, the Federal Circuit appears to have clarified its prior rulings, finding that such communications in certain circumstances do satisfy minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction. And a district court then leveraged this Federal Circuit ruling to find even less contacts sufficed to establish personal jurisdiction for a declaratory-judgment action.



In 2021, the Federal Circuit found that a patentee’s sending of pre-suit communications into the Northern District of California can and did provide the minimum contacts necessary to subject it to a declaratory judgment action. Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, 997 F.3d 1147, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2021). In Trimble, the patentee communicated with the alleged infringer 22 times, including by letter, phone and email. Id. at *1151. Trimble set the stage one year later for the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to conclude that a patentee’s sending of a mere two cease-and-desist letters into the district combined with its previous litigation in the districtconstituted sufficient contacts for a declaratory judgement action. PopSockets LLC v. Flygrip, Inc., 2022 WL 17547954, *7–*12 (D. Colo. 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 17729705, *2–*4 (D. Colo. 2022).



It is unclear where the line in the sand is. Patentees may need to balance their potential exposure to a district’s jurisdiction against their desire to generate licensing revenue or establish the prerequisite knowledge to support a later willful-infringement claim. Only time will tell the minimum amount of cease-and-desist letter writing needed to establish the minimum contacts necessary for a declaratory judgment action.

Patent Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction: Are Patentees Communicating Too Much?

Featured Insights

Related Services

Featured Insights