Osteotech, Inc. v. Gensci Regeneration Sciences, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “[a] single, unsolicited contact, random or fortuitous acts or the unilateral acts of others (including the plaintiff) do not constitute a purposeful connection between the defendant and the forum state”
• stating “[t]he first two prerequisites for a valid transfer under § 1404(a) are that venue must be proper in both the transferor and transferee court.”
• asserting jurisdiction over alleged infringer based upon single direct sale to a New Jersey customer
• finding argument that a “single sale . . . represent[ing] only a tiny fraction of its total sales is not persuasive” in avoiding specific jurisdiction because it “confuses the nature of the contacts involved in analyzing specific and general jurisdiction”
• “it is enough that GenSci Labs sold its product in New Jersey only once, because the product allegedly infringes Osteotech’s ’588 Patent, which is the subject matter of the instant litigation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).