Finjan, Inc. v. ESET, LLC et al

Filing 106

ORDER on ESET SPOL's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 55 ]. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 3/21/2017. (jjg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FINJAN, INC.,

Case No.: 3:17-cv-0183-CAB-(BGS)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER ON ESET SPOL’S MOTION
TO DISMISS
[Doc. No. 55]

ESET, LLC, a California Limited Liability
and ESET SPOL. S.R.O., a Slovak
Republic Corporation,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18

Before the Court is Defendant ESET spol s.r.o.’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff

19

Finjan’s complaint against it for patent infringement for lack of personal jurisdiction

20

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P.

21

12(b)(6). [Doc. No. 55.] Finjan filed an opposition. [Doc. No. 63.] ESET spol filed a

22

reply. [Doc. No. 65.] The Court heard argument on March 20, 2017. For the reasons set

23

forth on the record and summarized below the motion is DENIED.

24

ESET spol, headquartered in Bratislava in the Slovak Republic, is the parent

25

company of co-defendant ESET LLC. Finjan has accused both ESET spol and ESET

26

LLC of making, using, selling and importing products that infringe, or inducing the

27

infringement, of six Finjan patents. In its complaint Finjan alleges that ESET spol and

28
1
3:17-cv-0183-CAB-(BGS)

1

ESET LLC both do sufficient business in the Northern District of California1 to establish

2

minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction. ESET LLC, a California corporation with

3

its principal place of business in San Diego does not dispute this general allegation.

4

ESET spol however does.

5

Personal jurisdiction issues in patent cases are governed by Federal Circuit law.

6

The plaintiff bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that a defendant is subject

7

to personal jurisdiction. The Court is required to resolve any factual conflicts in the

8

plaintiff’s favor. See Synthes (U.S.A.) v. G.M. Dos Reis Jr. Ind., 563 F.3d 1285, 1292

9

(Fed. Cir. 2009). Finjan contends that ESET spol’s minimum contacts with the United

10

States are sufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) of the

11

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

12

Rule 4(k)(2) allows a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if:

13

(1) the plaintiff’s claim arises under federal law, (2) the defendant is not subject to

14

jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction

15

comports with due process. Id. at 1293-94. It is undisputed in this case the Plaintiff’s

16

claims for patent infringement arise under federal law and that the Defendant is not

17

subject to suit in the courts of general jurisdiction of any state. The Plaintiff must

18

therefore establish the third requirement, that the Defendant has affiliating contacts with

19

the entire United States sufficient to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Id. at

20

1295.

21

Due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in

22

personam, the defendant must have certain minimum contacts with the forum such that

23

the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial

24

justice. Int’l. Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 319 316 (1945). To be subject to specific

25
26
27
28

1

This matter was transferred to this judicial district at the request of defendant ESET LLC while the
motion to dismiss was pending. The analysis of personal jurisdiction for ESET spol, however is not
dependent on its contacts with a specific judicial district but on the evidence of sufficient minimum
contacts with the United States.
2
3:17-cv-0183-CAB-(BGS)

1

jurisdiction, (1) the defendant must purposefully direct its activities at residents of the

2

forum, (2) the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s activities with the forum,

3

and (3) assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. A substantial connection

4

with a forum arising out of a single act can support jurisdiction. Synthes, 563 F.3d at

5

1297.

6

Finjan provided evidence that ESET spol develops the software products

7

accused of infringement. It has registered numerous U.S. trademarks and copyrights

8

related to the accused software. ESET spol is the registered owner and administrator of

9

the website eset.com. The accused software is advertised, sold, and serviced through this

10

website. U.S. consumer queries to ESET spol’s website, eset.com, are automatically

11

routed to ESET spol’s North American subsidiary ESET LLC. ESET LLC does not

12

however operate its own website. ESET LLC receives its consumer traffic through the

13

website owned and administered by ESET spol.

14

The End–User license agreement for purchasers of the accused software states

15

it is “executed by and between ESET, spol s.r.o., having its registered office at

16

Einsteinova 24, 851 01 Bratislava, Slovak Republic, registered in the Commercial

17

Register administered by Bratislava I District Court, Section Sro, Entry No 3586/B,

18

Business Registration Number 31 333 535 or another company from the ESET Group”

19

and the buyer. The agreement provides no specific identification of any other ESET

20

company, such that a buyer would have any understanding that he or she was entering

21

into a license agreement with any entity other than ESET spol. ESET LLC uses this form

22

of license and does not provide a separate form for U.S. customers identifying ESET LLC

23

as the licensor.

24

Resolving conflicts in favor of Finjan, the Court finds that Finjan has made a

25

prima facie showing that ESET spol had purposefully directed activities that relate to the

26

claims at issue to residents of the United States and has sufficient contacts such that the

27

exercise of jurisdiction in this case over ESET spol is reasonable, under Rule 4(k)(2).

28

The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied.
3
3:17-cv-0183-CAB-(BGS)

1

With regard to the request to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule

2

12(b)(6), ESET spol is correct that the complaint does not differentiate between ESET

3

spol and ESET LLC regarding the allegations of infringement. The Court separately

4

found in ESET LLC’s motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 105] that the subsequent infringement

5

contentions and election of claims served by Finjan generally resolved the specificity

6

concerns raised by the Defendants. 2 Finjan contends that ESET spol is liable for the

7

direct and indirect infringement of its patents through the importation of the software and

8

operation of the website. The Court finds the allegations at this point in the litigation

9

sufficiently described to put ESET spol on notice of Finjan’s claims. The motion to

10

dismiss for failure to state a claim is therefore denied.

11
12

ESET spol is ordered to file an answer no later than April 3, 2017 in accordance
with the Court’s order issued at Doc. No. 105.

13
14

It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 21, 2017

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

As noted in the order on ESET LLC’s motion to dismiss, significant work has been done by Finjan to
narrow and more particularly identify the claims of infringement pursuant to the scheduling order entered
before the case was transferred. Consequently, the Court finds the need to amend the complaint to provide
adequate notice to the defendants has become generally moot.
2

27
28

4
3:17-cv-0183-CAB-(BGS)