Google appealed, arguing the injunction was beyond the jurisdiction of the court, that it improperly operated against an innocent non-party to the litigation, and that it had an
impermissible extraterritorial reach.
The Solicitor General of the United States filed a brief supporting the petition for review and further urged the high court to
expand extraterritorial reach beyond 271 (f)-- to consider awarding lost profits in any situation where a transnational company suffers lost profits around the world due to patent infringement under U.S. law
Google appealed, arguing: (i) the injunction was beyond the jurisdiction of the court; (ii) it improperly operated against an innocent non-party to the litigation; (iii) it had an
impermissible extraterritorial reach and violated the principle of comity; and (iv) it should not have been granted because of its effect on freedom of speech.
The Litigation Center filed dozens of briefs in the last year on issues of personal jurisdiction and venue, has been a regular filer in cases concerning the scope of the Alien Tort Statute, and actively argues for appropriate limits on
the extraterritorial reach of U.S. law.
Further, it contends that
the extraterritorial reach of the injunction is inappropriate and a violation of principles of comity.
On January 12, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal addressing whether a patent owner proving infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (f) is entitled to damages suffered outside the United States, or whether a presumption against
any extraterritorial reach of U.S. law excludes recovery for foreign injuries...
Arguably, all FMCG companies face challenges due to the size, scale and footprint of their businesses, especially to ensure they're compliant with regulations which have
extraterritorial reach (including anti-bribery legislation).