District court judgment dismissing plaintiff's action is reversed where the act of filing an application for a patent at the USPTO was sufficient to subject defendant to personal jurisdiction in a malpractice claim based upon that filing and brought in federal court, as defendant's contacts with the United States were sufficient to meet the minimum contacts standard and the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendants does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The act of filing an application for a U.S. patent at the USPTO is sufficient to subject the filing attorney to personal jurisdiction in a malpractice claim that is based upon that filing and is brought in federal court.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Submitted: June 8, 2009
Filed: August 3, 2009
Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
Dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge PROST.