Court has subject matter jurisdiction to find patent invalid
Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne (French Corp.) and F2C2 Systems S.A.S. (French Corp.) v. Broetje Automation-USA Inc. (Delaware Corp.) Bröetje-Automation GmbH (German Corp.) Civil Action No. 09-598a-LPS, October 13, 2011.
Stark, J. Motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied.
Defendants Broetje Automation-USA Inc. and Brötje-Automation GmbH (“Broetje”) maintained the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over U.S. Patent No. 5,011,339 (the “‘339 patent”) and moved for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Broetje asserted that the issue fee was never paid and, on that basis, the Patent Office sought to have the ‘339 patent withdrawn. There was no evidence in the record of an actual withdrawal, however, and the ‘339 patent did issue. Circumstantial evidence was admissible to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the issue fee was paid. Subject matter jurisdiction, therefore, is proper.
