top of page

In re: Google LLC (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020)

The Federal Circuit elaborated on the three requirements of In re Cray, Inc. needed to establish that a defendant has a regular and established place of business (i.e., 1) a physical place in the district; 2) a regular and established place of business; and 3) the place must be that of the defendant).

The court indicated that the rack space (for the servers) that Google Global Cache leases under contract with the Internet Service Providers (ISP) qualifies as a physical place that the defendant could "possess or control" and that a place of business is not restricted to real property that a defendant must "own or lease."

The court also stated that a “regular and established place of business” requires the regular, physical presence of an employee or other agent of the defendant conducting the defendant’s business at the alleged “place of business.” While indicating that a machine could act as an agent for Google, the court concluded that the activities of the ISP's, such as installation or maintenance, did not establish an agency relationship between Google and the ISP's and did not amount to "actual producing, storing, and furnishing to customers of what the business offers."

Read the case here.

Recent Posts

See All

U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi

Post by Paul Serbinowski What must the specification disclose to enable broad functional claim language? A week ago in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the U.S. Supreme Court considered what the specification mu


Os comentários foram desativados.
bottom of page