The case law in the United States had established the “presump-tion against extraterritoriality” doctrine, while the statutory law had enacted the sections of 271(b), (f), (g), and 105 of the US Patent Act to exceptionally provide the “extraterritorial doctrine”, such that it would be able to regulate situations such as partial manufacturing within the United States and overseas assembly thereof to avoid the all-elements rule, importing of overseas-manufactured products made by method patents, infringing by extended instrumentalities or over-seas activities located in non-sovereign areas including outer spaces, or overseas aiding and abetting acts contributed to an inducement.
Issues relating to international private law regarding extraterritori-ality include the classification of exclusive jurisdiction to patents due to its necessity of being registered to the state, which distinguishes a patent from other forms of intellectual properties such as copyrights. The classification is conducted based on the considerations of factors of comity, doctrine of state action, and the nature of validity thereof.
The author argues that various sections of the Patent Act shall be amended to essentially contain mechanisms established at the sections of 271(a), (b), (f), (g), and 105 of the US Patent Act. And, the section 42 of the Law Governing the Application of Laws to Civil Matters In-volving Foreign Elements shall be amended as well to essentially con-tain mechanisms established at the section 301 of ALI regulation to issues of the existence, validity, duration, attributes, and infringement of intellectual property rights and the remedies for their infringement, and determine the applicable laws to be: (a) for registered rights, the law of each State of registration. (b) for other intellectual property rights, the law of each State for which protection is sought.