The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a district court’s ruling that dealership agreements were sufficient to establish jurisdiction over car manufacturers in a patent dispute. In re Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., --- F.4th ---, 2022 WL 697526 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2022). StratosAudio, Inc. sued Volkswagen and Hyundai in a Texas federal court for infringement of its patents related to car “infotainment” systems. Each moved to dismiss or transfer the cases because their sole connections to the district—franchise agreements with car dealerships—did not mean they had a “regular and established place of business” there. The issue boiled down to whether the manufacturers had enough control over the dealerships to make them the manufacturers’ agents. If so, the suits could continue; if not, the suits would be dismissed or transferred.
The Federal Circuit drew a sharp distinction between those contractual provisions that outline what the dealerships’ obligations are and questions of how the dealerships fulfill those obligations. An agency relationship would only exist if the manufacturers had “interim control” over how the dealerships conducted their business. The court pointed to several aspects of the agreements preserving the dealerships’ autonomy: the manufacturers could not dictate how the dealerships sold cars to consumers or performed warranty services, and the dealerships retained full control of their day-to-day operations. The agreements also expressly disclaimed an agency relationship. This was sufficient for the court to conclude that there was no agency relationship, and thus the manufacturers were not subject to the jurisdiction of the district court.
“The best part of my career is helping clients focus on their business while they are facing a legal dispute. It’s an honor to work with people who love what they do.”
Loren Hansen is a Registered Patent Attorney and first chair ...
Lee Bennin is an associate in the firm's Intellectual Property Litigation practice group. Lee has experience in product liability, commercial, railroad, insurance litigation, and appellate matters as well. Lee previously ...
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
About this Publication
The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP.
To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here.