From Deepsouth to WesternGeco: The Patent Provision Heard Around the World
| Author | Sam H. Boyer |
| Position | J.D. candidate 2020, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University |
| Pages | 166-202 |
Louisiana Law Review Louisiana Law Review
Volume 80
Number 1
Fall 2019
Article 11
3-3-2020
From Deepsouth to WesternGeco: The Patent Provision From Deepsouth to WesternGeco: The Patent Provision
HeardAround the World HeardAround the World
Sam H. Boyer
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev
Part of the Law Commons
Repository Citation Repository Citation
Sam H. Boyer,
From Deepsouth to WesternGeco: The Patent Provision HeardAround the World
, 80 La. L.
Rev. (2020)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol80/iss1/11
This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital
Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital
Commons. For more information, please contact kreed25@lsu.edu.
337366-LSU_80-1_Text.indd 171 11/27/19 9:28 AM
From Deepsouth to WesternGeco: The Patent
Provision Heard Around the World
Sam H. Boyer*
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.................................................................................. 166
I. United States Patent Law: From Deepsouth to
Section 271(f)............................................................................... 168
A. The Impact of Deepsouth: Section 271(f).............................. 169
B. The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality.......................... 170
1. Policy Considerations...................................................... 171
2. The Inconsistent Application of the Presumption
Against Extraterritoriality ............................................... 172
II. Section 284: Damages in Patent Law Regarding
Extraterritoriality.......................................................................... 175
A. Damages in Patent Law ......................................................... 176
B. Extraterritorial Damages in Patent Law................................. 177
1. Extraterritorial Damages Jurisprudence .......................... 179
2. WesternGeco’s Over-Inclusive Majority ........................ 180
III. Right Result, Wrong Reason: Issues with WesternGeco.............. 183
A. Justice Gorsuch’s WesternGeco Dissent................................ 185
B. WesternGeco’s Impact........................................................... 188
IV. Proposed Conflict of Laws Approach and
Foreign Relations Law Factor Test .............................................. 191
A. Conflict of Laws Analysis ..................................................... 191
1. Louisiana’s Conflict of Laws Approach ......................... 193
2. Application of Article 3515 in WesternGeco.................. 194
B. Factor Test ............................................................................. 195
1. The Late Justice Scalia’s Take ........................................195
2. Reconciling Antitrust and Patent Law ............................ 198
Conclusion.................................................................................... 199
Copyright 2019, by SAM H. BOYER.
* J.D. candidate 2020, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State
University. I would like to thank Professor Lee Ann Lockridge and the Louisiana
Law Review Volume 79 Board for helping me through this writing process.
337366-LSU_80-1_Text.indd 172 11/27/19 9:28 AM
166 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 80
INTRODUCTION
High-tech, high-stakes, multinational patent disputes may be modern
and flashy, but one tool in the United States patent holder’s arsenal, 35
U.S.C. § 271(f), has beginnings as humble as the shrimp and its inelegant
vein. Anyone visiting southern Louisiana can attest that shrimp are a
dietary staple. Although shrimp certainly present a “gustatory delight,”
they “wear their skeletons outside of their bodies,” creating an issue for
those looking to indulge.1 Moreover, their gastrointestinal veins shallowly
traverse their backs.2 Accordingly, one must tediously peel and devein
each individual shrimp prior to consumption—that is, until commercial
equipment arrived on the scene.3
To industrialize the process of preparing shrimp, Laitram Corporation
(“Laitram”) meticulously developed a shrimp slitter and deveining device
that quickly and cheaply processed large quantities of shrimp.4 Seeking
exclusivity for its innovation, Laitram obtained a patent in 1958.5 Despite
the patent, Deepsouth Packing Company (“Deepsouth”) began
manufacturing and selling a similar shrimp deveining device.6 Laitram
subsequently sued Deepsouth to halt its operation.7 The trial court issued
an injunction, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.8 Determined to keep its
business alive, however, Deepsouth requested the United States Supreme
Court’s approval to continue selling its machine abroad.9
Section 271(a) of the Patent Act provides that anyone who makes or
sells an infringing device within the United States is liable for patent
infringement.10 Deepsouth successfully argued that by ceasing the
manufacturing process on each machine just shy of completion, it was
neither “making” nor “selling” the patented invention within the United
States in violation of U.S. patent law.11 Instead, Deepsouth shipped the
1. Laitram Corp. v. Deepsouth Packing Co., 301 F. Supp. 1037, 1040 (1969).
2. Id.
3. See generally id. (discussing the economic desirability and introduction
of these devices).
4. Id.
5. U.S. Patent No. 2,825,927 (filed Mar. 11, 1958).
7. Id.
8. Laitram Corp. v. Deepsouth Packing Co., 443 F.2d 928 (1971).
9. Deepsouth requested a modification to the injunction that would allow it
to continue manufacturing the deveiner in certain situations. Deepsouth Packing
Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972).
10. “[W]hoever . . . makes, uses or sells any patented invention, within the
United States . . . infringes the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (2018).
11. Deepsouth, 406 U.S. at 523.
To continue reading
Request your trial