Ingeniador, LLC v. Interwoven, Inc. et al

Filing 272

ORDER: Granting 241 Motion to Set Aside Judgment. Signed by Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi on 6/15/2012. (TC)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

INGENIADOR, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIV. NO.: 11-1840 (GAG)

INTERWOVEN,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
Currently before the court is a motion filed by Bridgeline
Digital, Inc. (“Bridgeline”) to set aside entry of default and
default judgment entered by the court at Docket Nos. 73 and
235 respectively. The facts of this case have previously been
recounted by the court at Docket No. 263 and need not be
reiterated for the purposes of this motion.

Ingengiador

CIVIL NO . 11-1840 (GAG)

Page 2

(“Plaintiff”) successfully sought entry of default and default
judgment against Bridgeline. After Bridgeline filed its motion
to set aside, Plaintiff filed its opposition (Docket No. 267).
Bridgeline filed a reply brief (Docket No. 270).

For the

following reasons, the court GRANTS Bridgeline’s motion to
set aside the entry of default and default judgment (Docket No.
241). Further the court GRANTS Bridgline’s motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction. (See id.)
I. Personal Jurisdiction
As previously discussed at length (Docket No. 263 at 22-26),
specific in personam jurisdiction can be found due to the
existence of an interactive website that is either geared towards
the forum or that sells the infringing product within the forum
jurisdiction. However, the mere presence of a website does not

CIVIL NO . 11-1840 (GAG)

Page 3

demonstrate a defendant has purposefully availed itself of the
laws of the jurisdiction. Bridgeline’s contacts with Puerto Rico
are similar to those of Tridion’s, which the court deemed
insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. (See Docket No.
263 at 22-26.)
Plaintiff asserts specific in personam jurisdiction over
Bridgeline due to Bridgeline’s interactive website. (See Docket
No. 267 at 8.) However, there is no indication that Bridgeline’s
website ever sold the infringing product within Puerto Rico.
The website is not specifically focused on Puerto Rico as a
forum to sell its products. See Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Pedre
Promotional Prods., Inc., 395 F.3d 1275, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(holding maintenance of website available to all internet users
does not establish persistent conduct by defendants within the
jurisdiction).

CIVIL NO . 11-1840 (GAG)

Page 4

In disagreeing with the court’s previous opinion on this
matter, Plaintiff points to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), for the proposition
that a patent infringement tort is committed not only when a
product is sold, but also when it is made, used, and offered for
sale. See 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). While this is the law, it does little
to help Plaintiff demonstrate personal jurisdiction over
Bridgeline.

Plaintiff may have a valid claim against this

defendant as well as many of the other defendants, but those
claims cannot be brought in this court. Plaintiff may bring
these claims in jurisdictions that can properly assert personal
jurisdiction over Defendants.
II. Conclusion
The court finds it does not have personal jurisdiction over,
Bridgeline. Therefore, the court GRANTS Bridgeline’s motion
to set aside the entry of default and default judgment entered

CIVIL NO . 11-1840 (GAG)

Page 5

against Bridgeline (Docket No. 241) and dismisses the claims
without prejudice. The entry of default and default judgment
(Docket Nos. 273 & 235) are hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 15th day of June, 2012.

S/ Gustavo A. Gelpí
GUSTAVO A. GELPI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE