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)

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