Rotec Industries is the assignee of the ’291 patent for a crane conveyor belt system used to carry concrete over long distances for construction projects such as river dams. The defendants, a group of corporations including Mitsubishi Corp., signed an agreement with the Chinese government to provide a crane conveyor belt system for its Three Gorges Dam project. Rotec alleged that the defendants were offering to sell a conveyor system that infringed upon its’291 patent. Rotec sued for patent infringement. The evidence at trial showed:
(1) The agreement among the defendants called for all of the conveyor components to be made in Japan and China;
(2) No components were made in the United States;
(3) The bid proposal, including the description of the product and the proposed price, was finalized in Hong Kong and presented in China;
(4) All negotiations with the Chinese government prior to signing the agreement took place in China; and
(5) The agreement was signed in China. How should the court rule on Rotec’s claim and why?