## Facts

- Jan K. Voda, an Oklahoma cardiologist, owned U.S. patents and related foreign patents covering catheter technology.
- Cordis Corporation manufactured and sold catheter products in the United States and through foreign affiliates abroad.
- Voda sued Cordis in federal district court for infringement of his U.S. patents under 28 U.S.C. § 1338.
- Voda amended the complaint to add claims alleging infringement of his foreign patents based on allegedly infringing acts occurring in other countries.
- The district court concluded it could hear the foreign patent claims under supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
- Cordis pursued an interlocutory appeal challenging the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the foreign patent claims.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over foreign patent infringement claims appended to U.S. patent claims within 28 U.S.C. § 1338.
2. If § 1367(a) is satisfied, whether a district court should decline jurisdiction under § 1367(c) based on discretionary factors, including international comity and the territorial nature of patent rights.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s jurisdictional ruling and remanded.
- The court assumed the foreign patent claims could satisfy § 1367(a)’s “same case or controversy” requirement because the same products, parties, and overlapping evidence linked the U.S. and foreign claims.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion by exercising supplemental jurisdiction in light of § 1367(c) and prudential considerations.
- Judge Newman dissented, concluding supplemental jurisdiction was properly exercised to resolve related disputes in a single forum.

## Legal Principles

- Supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367 is discretionary; even where § 1367(a) is met, a court may decline jurisdiction under § 1367(c) after considering economy, convenience, fairness, and related concerns.
- Patent rights are territorial; each nation’s patent law governs the scope, validity, and infringement of patents issued by that nation, and foreign patents exist independently of U.S. patents.
- International comity weighs against U.S. adjudication of foreign patent infringement claims, given foreign sovereign interests in applying their own patent laws and the risk of inconsistent judgments.
- Practical burdens—multiple bodies of foreign patent law, reliance on foreign-law experts, trial management problems, jury confusion, and uncertain recognition or enforcement abroad—support declining supplemental jurisdiction over foreign patent claims.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that although foreign patent claims related to U.S. patent claims may fall within § 1367(a), district courts generally should decline to hear foreign patent infringement claims in U.S. patent cases when comity, territoriality of patents, and case-management concerns make exercising supplemental jurisdiction an abuse of discretion.


Voda v. Cordis Corp., 476 F.3d 887 (Fed. Cir. 2007)