TARGET TRAINING INTERNATIONAL v. EXTENDED DISC INTERNATIONAL , No. 15-1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ TARGET TRAINING INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant v. EXTENDED DISC INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Defendant-Appellee ______________________ 2015-1856 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in No. 4:11-cv-02531, Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore. ______________________ Decided: April 22, 2016 ______________________ CHRISTINE MARIE LEBRON-DYKEMAN, McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C., Des Moines, IA, argued for plaintiffappellant. Also represented by ROBERT SCOTT JOHNSON, EDMUND J. SEASE. JUSTIN CARL PFEIFFER, Ajamie LLP, Houston, TX, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by DONA SZAK. ______________________ 2 TARGET TRAINING INT’L v. EXTENDED DISC INT’L Before PROST, Chief Judge, DYK and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges. O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. Appellant Target Training International, Ltd. (“TTI”) appeals from the district court’s dismissal of its suit against Extended DISC International Oy Ltd. (“EDI”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,249,372 (“the ’372 patent”). The court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). In the companion case, No. 2015-1873, which involves the same patent, we affirmed another district court’s dismissal of that case as moot. At oral argument for this case, counsel conceded that for the purposes of the jurisdictional inquiry, we should look to the original, now canceled claims of the patent. Because the new patent claims added in the reexamination of the patent are not at issue in this case, we find the existing case moot for similar reasons as the companion case. Because the suit is moot, we need not reach the issue of personal jurisdiction. We, therefore, affirm. AFFIRMED

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.