Dismissal on Forum non Conveniens Grounds Is Inappropriate Absent Evidence Showing that the Foreign Forum Can Provide an Adequate Remedy for U.S. Infringement

Mar 16, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

In this case, Appellant Halo, a Hong Kong private company that designs and sells high-end furniture, sued appellee Comptoir, a Canadian corporation, in the Northern District of Illinois. Halo alleged that Comptoir infringed its U.S. design patents, copyrights and trademark. Halo also alleged that Comptoir violated the Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive business practices statutes. Comptoir moved to dismiss Halo’s complaint on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing that the Federal Court of Canada provided a superior forum in which to resolve the dispute.

In reversing the district court’s decision to grant Comptoir’s motion to dismiss, the Federal Circuit stated that a forum non conveniens inquiry must consider whether an alternative forum is both adequate and available. In order to meet the adequacy requirement, the foreign forum must provide some potential avenue for redress of the subject matter in dispute. Here, the Federal Circuit held that the Federal Court of Canada was not an adequate alternative forum, because there was no indication that the Canadian court would adjudicate an intellectual property dispute where the alleged infringement occurred elsewhere, and there was no evidence to support the proposition the Canadian court would apply U.S. law. The Federal Circuit further noted that the requirement that a movant demonstrate adequacy of an alternative forum is particularly important in intellectual property cases due to the territoriality concerns raised by these disputes.

Halo Creative & Design Ltd. v. Comptoir Des Indes Inc., No. 15-1375 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2016).
[Dyk (opinion), Mayer, Hughes] 

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.