Wedge Group, LLC v. Kiley Madison, Inc., et. al.

Filing 11

ORDER denying w/o prej 9 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (car, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CIVIL ACTION

WEDGE GROUP, LLC

No. 11-501

VERSUS

SECTION I

KILEY MADISON, INC., ET AL.

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion1 to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) and Rule 12(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of defendant, Kiley Madison, Inc. Plaintiff,
Wedge Group, LLC, opposes2 the motion. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff claims that it is the sole and exclusive owner of the entire right, title and interest
in and to the ‘752 patent, entitled “Drinking Container.”3 Plaintiff alleges that defendant “has
infringed and is currently infringing the ‘752 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making,
having made, using, selling and/or offering for sale, within the United States, products and
processes embodying the invention claimed in the ‘752 Patent.”4 Plaintiff further alleges that
“[v]enue over these claims is proper in this judicial district…because, among other reasons,
Defendant Kiley Madison, Inc. is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district, and has
committed acts of infringement in this judicial district.”5

1

R. Doc. No. 9.
R. Doc. No. 10.
3
R. Doc. No. 1.
4
Id.
5
Id.
2

1

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Although defendant styles its motion as a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction and for improper venue, defendant, in fact, moves to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint on
the grounds that the complaint fails to allege a sufficient basis for jurisdiction over defendant and
that the complaint fails to allege a sufficient basis to establish the Eastern District of Louisiana as
the proper venue for this lawsuit.
Courts have established that detailed pleading with respect to personal jurisdiction is not
required. As noted in Stirling Homex Corp. v. Homasote Co., 437 F.2d 87 (2d Cir. 1971), “Rule
8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prescribes the rather simple requirements of a
sufficient complaint. Besides a straightforward statement of the claim and a demand for
judgment, the complaint need contain only a short and plain statement of the grounds upon
which the court's jurisdiction depends.” Id. at 88 (quotation marks omitted). The term
jurisdiction in this context refers to subject matter rather than personal jurisdiction. Id.
Importantly, “there is no affirmative duty to plead personal jurisdiction because it is assumed
that personal jurisdiction exists.” Shanks v. Wexner, 2003 WL 1343018, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 18,
2003) (citing Sterling, 437 F.2d at 88). The Court finds that there is no basis for dismissing
plaintiff’s complaint for insufficient pleading of personal jurisdiction.
Furthermore, since “[v]enue in a patent action against a corporate defendant exists
wherever there is personal jurisdiction,” Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Pedre Promotional Prods., Inc.,
395 F.3d 1275, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2005),6 there is similarly no basis for dismissing plaintiff’s
complaint at this time for improper venue.
For the foregoing reasons,
6

In patent infringement cases, the law of the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, rather than that of the regional
circuit in which the case arises, determines whether a district court properly exercises personal jurisdiction. Nuance
Commc’ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

2

IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
and improper venue is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-urge, if appropriate, following
completion of pertinent discovery.

New Orleans, Louisiana, July18th 2011.
_____,

___________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3