Commissariat A L'energie Atomique v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “ongoing relationships with retailers in Delaware” is evidence of a “defendant’s intent and purpose to serve the Delaware market”
• stating that a defendant’s design efforts directed to the U.S. market (including Delaware) is pertinent evidence of an intent and purpose to serve the Delaware market
• stating that an intent and purpose to serve the market in a particular state, such as Delaware, may be evidenced by “design and marketing efforts directed to the U.S. market (including Delaware)”
• explaining the different positions taken by Justices O’Connor and Brennan regarding question of “minimum contacts”
• “[T]he tor-tious injury caused by patent infringement occurs within the state where the allegedly infringing sales are made.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).