AOptix Technologies v. Blue Spike, LLC

Filing 27

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 19 Motion to Dismiss (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10

AOPTIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 13-CV-1105 YGR
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT BLUE SPIKE,
LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
BLUE SPIKE, LLC,

14

Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff AOptix Technologies, Inc. ("AOptix") brings this action against Defendant Blue

17

Spike, LLC ("Blue Spike") seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of four patents

18

assigned to Blue Spike. The parties and the Court are familiar with the factual and procedural

19

background, which the Court omits here. Now before the Court is Blue Spike's Motion to dismiss

20

AOptix's First Amended Complaint on a variety of grounds. (Dkt. Nos. 18, 19.) The parties

21

acknowledge that much of the motion has been mooted by proceedings in the Eastern District of

22

Texas. (Dkt. No. 25.) The only issue remaining for the Court to resolve is whether this Court may

23

exercise personal jurisdiction over Blue Spike. (Id.)

24

Having carefully considered the papers submitted and the pleadings in this action, the Court

25

finds that Blue Spike's contacts with California justify this Court's exercise of specific personal

26

jurisdiction over Blue Spike.1 See Kyocera Commc'ns, Inc. v. Potter Voice Technologies, LLC, No.

27
28

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court
finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument.

1

13-CV-0766-H BGS, 2013 WL 2456032, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 5, 2013) (basing exercise of specific

2

personal jurisdiction on defendant's activities of "suing several California defendants for

3

infringement of the [patent-in-suit], [retaining] counsel in California for that lawsuit, and

4

[engaging] in licensing negotiations and other activities related to the litigation in California");

5

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. v. AFTG-TG LLC, No. 5:CV 11-00192-EJD, 2011 WL 6845791, at *8

6

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2011) ("By suing a California corporation, Defendants directed activity toward

7

a resident of this state.") (citing Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541, 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).

8

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion. The Court need not and does not reach the question of

9

general personal jurisdiction.
This Order terminates Docket No. 19.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Date: June 11, 2014

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2