Cybiotronics, Ltd. v. Golden Source Electronics, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “liability under Section 271(a) does not extend to ‘offers to sell’ which do not contemplate actual ‘sales’ of goods to be consummated within the United States”
• finding that NAFT was the importer because when the products-were shipped to the U.S., “the products were at that time the ‘property’ of NAFT”
• dismissing inducement and contributory 6 infringement claim due to lack of evidence that accused infringer knew of the patent prior to the 7 lawsuit
• shipments of samples to the United States were not “imports” where title transferred in Hong Kong
• that title passed “FOB Hong Kong” not determinative; however sale took place in Hong Kong because all “essential activities” — negotiation, execution, performance, and delivery — took place there
• “Even if what [defendant] did in this case could credibly be described as an ‘offer to sell,’ and even if that ‘offer to sell’ could credibly be said to have been made ‘within the United States,’ liability under Section 271(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).