Key Source International v. CeeColor Industries, LLC et al

Filing 57

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 3, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 KEY SOURCE INTERNATIONAL, a California Corporation, 12 Plaintiff, 13 No. C 12-01776 WHA ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS v. 16 CEECOLOR INDUSTRIES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; ALAN KIPUST, an individual; SITKA SPRUCE SECURITY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1–1000, 17 Defendant. 14 15 18 19 / This declaratory patent action has had a strange procedural history. In April 2012, 20 plaintiff filed this action for declaratory relief of invalidity and non-infringement. Defendants 21 moved to dismiss on the grounds that (1) this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Ceecolor 22 Industries, LLC and (2) there is no case or controversy involving defendants Alan Kipust and 23 Sitka Spruce Security, LLC. Defendants also moved to transfer this action to the District of 24 Delaware, where Ceecolor had already filed an infringement action alleging that plaintiff 25 infringed at least one of the patents at issue here. Plaintiff opposed on grounds that it was not 26 properly named and served in the Delaware action. 27 28 1 Defendants’ motion was held in abeyance until Delaware District Judge Richard 2 Andrews determined whether the first-filed action in Delaware was properly prosecuted and 3 served, and whether our plaintiff here was a proper defendant there (Dkt. No. 49). Recently, the 4 District Court of Delaware dismissed CeeColor Industries LLC’s infringement action against our 5 plaintiff for lack of personal jurisdiction. This resolves the issue of transfer. Because the issues 6 of transfer and dismissal were intertwined in the parties’ prior briefs, a fresh round of briefing on 7 the motion to dismiss will be useful. Therefore, defendants must bring a fresh motion to dismiss 8 by October 17, to be noticed for hearing on the normal 35-day calendar. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Dated: October 3, 2012. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?