Datatreasury Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 209

RESPONSE to Motion re #83 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and Brief in Support Thereof (UnionBanCal) filed by Datatreasury Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit #2 Exhibit #3 Exhibit #4 Exhibit #5 Text of Proposed Order)(Bruster, Anthony)

Datatreasury Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Doc. 209 Att. 3

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 209

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 1 of 14
i ; t . : . r l { i.':r:ti , ,.._i1t:j-.:

IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR TIIE EASTERNDISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DII.ISION DATATREASURYCORP4 Plaintiff,

..

t l i il3! I 7 fi.i 8r 3A
; t:_:. i:.:; iiitil A:j-

$ $ $ $

s
2:04-CV-8tDtr

SMALL VALUE PAYMENTSCO., Defendant

$ $ $

s

ORDER Before the coult is defendad Small Value PaymentCompany's Motion to Dismiss for hnproperVenue(Dkt No. 2), filed Juoe l, 2004. After reyiew ofthe briefing by tho partiesandthe fa.ts and law ofthis matter,the court finds defendant's motion shouldbe DENIEI'. BACKGROUND This is apatentinfringernentcasebroughtbyplaintiffDatatreasury Corp. (hereafter rcfened to as "Datatreasury), or March4200,4, againstdefendantSmall Value Paymeds Co. Oereafter .efered to as "SVPCo') for infringemedt of U.S. PatentNos. 6,032,137(the "'137 patent') atrd (the 5 , 9 1 0 , 9 8 8 "'988 patent'). Databeasury aDelawarecoryoratiol with its principalplaceofbusinessin Mellville, New is York. S\?Co is a Delawarelimited liability company that naintains its principal placeofbusiness in New Yorl New York. Compl. at!l!f 1-2. Dataheaswyclaims that SVPCo has beenand ounetrtly is "infringing the '988 and '137 patentsby making, using, selling, offering for sale,and./or importing in or into the United States, directly, contributorilt and,/or inducement,without authority, products and servioesthat fall by P a g eI of 14

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 209

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 2 of 14

within the scopeofthe claims of*re '988 and '137 patents,including but not limited to electronic clearingandpoint-of-salecheck-to-debitservices." E. at f 8. As dis action arisesunderthe patent laws ofthe United Statesand Title 35 ofthe United StatesCode, the court hasjurisdiction over this action pursu.nt to 28 U.S.C. $ 1338(a)0999). S\?Co, however,movesthe court underFederalRule ofCivil Procedure12OX3) to di$dss this action fo! imDroDer vnug.

GENERALRULESOF LAW
I,

vENUE
Because is a suit for patentinftingement,the law ofth United StatesCourt ofAppeals this

for the FederalCircuit and not the Fiffh Circuit bir s this court, even as to mattersconcerning personaljudsdiction and the closely relatedissuofvenue. S@ Beverlv Hills Fan Co. v. Roval Sovereien (Fed.Cir, 1994) (stating Corp..21 F.3d 1558,1564-65 that,although issues ofpeNonal jurisdiction aregenemllyproceduralin nature,theyaresufficienflyrclatedto substantive patentlaw, andthusthe 1awofthe FederalCircuit connols). TheFedemlCircuit, however,defersto the law of the regional circuits to resolve no[-substantive patent issues. SeeAmana Refriqeration-Inc. v. Ouadlux.@- 172F.3d 852, 856 (Fed.Cir 1999)(tlis court is "generally guidedby the law ofthe regional 'circuit to which district court appeals norhally lig unlessthe issuepertainsto or is unique to patentlaw") (citation omittd). Venuerelatesto the locality in whioh a lawsuit may be brought. Minn. Min. & Mfe. Co. v. Eco Chern.Inc.. 757 F.2d 1256, 1264(Fed' Cir 1985)(citing Neirbo v. BethlehemShipbuildine g e E p - 3 0 8 U . S .165,167-68 (1939). Thepurpose venue is defeddants ofa requirement to protect ftom being forcedto defendlawsuitsin a court remotefrom their residelce or from wherethe acts

P a g e of 14 2

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 209

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 3 of 14

underlyingthe controversyoccurd. Hoover Croup.Inc. v. CustomMetalcraft. Inc.. 84 F.3d 1408, 1 4 1 0(Fed.Cir. 1996). Thevenuestaluterelatilg to patentinfringementclaimsprovides:"Any civil actionfoi patent inftingement may be brought in the judicial district vr'herethe defendantrcsides, or where the defendant corlmitted actsofinfringement aDdhasa rcgular atrdestablished has placeofbusiness." "resides"for venuepurposes, 28 U.S.C. $ 14000) (1999). Itr detemining wherea defendant oourts must look to the generalvenuestatut,28 U.S.C. g 1391(c)(2002). \E Holdioe Cory. v. Johlson G a sAooliance Co..917F.2d 1574,1578(Fed.Cir. 1990).Section provides: 1391(c) For purposesof venuounderthis chapter,a defendant that is a corpoEtion shall be jurisdiction deenedto rcsidein anyjudicial district in which it is subjectto personal at the time the action is cornmenced.In a Statewhich has morc than onejudicial district and in which a defeddant that is a corpomtiol is subject to personal judsdiction at the time the action is oofimenced,suchcorpolation shall be deemed .rould be sufficient to to resideirl any district in that Statewithi! which its contacts jurisdiction ifthat district were a sepaste State,and,ifthere is subjectit to personal no suchdistrict, the corporationshallbe deemed residein the district within which to it has the most significant contacts. 28 U.S.C. $ 1391(c). Readingtbe statutestogether,Datafteasury must demonstete that pe.Tsonal jurisdiction over SVPCo exists in the EastemDistdct of Texas,atrd carnot aggregate S\?Co's contactswithin the entire StateofTexas to establishthat venueis proper in this dishict. jurisdiction in a federal dishict cout if: A notr-resideot defendant subjectto personal is (1) the defendantis within the reaohofthe forum state'slong aim statute;and (2) due processis satisfied.SlgBeverlv Hills Fan.2l F.3d at 1569(statingthat courtsmust look to therelevantstate's long-am stahrteeven when the causeof action is pwely federal). Becau! the Txaslong-al1Il statuteis co-extensive with the limits ofduo proooss, Bearw v, BeeohAircraft Com.. 8I 8 F.2d 370, 372 (5th Cn. 1987), the court's sole inquiry is whetherthe exeroiseofpersonal judsdiction over P a g e of 14 3

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 209

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 4 of 14

SVPCocompoiswith dueprocess. @ 4 2 7 (Fed,. 1996);seealsolb..lg9!p.t-L4kq, Cjf.

84F.3d424, (Fed.Cir. 1995)(stating 45 F.3d,1541,1544

jurisdiction over a nofiesiderf defendantin federalquestioncases to federalcourtshave personal the extentthat federalconstitutionaldueprocesslimits allow). Although Datatreasury bearsthe burdenof establishingcontactsby SVPCo sulficint to invoke thejwisdiction ofthis court, X4ls94_g,89!4, 20 F.3d,644,648(sthcir. 1994),the Federal andFifth Circuitsagree wherea district court'sdispositionofthe persomljurisdictional question that is basedon alfidavits and otherwritten materialsin the absenco ofan evidertiary headng aplaintiff need only to make a pdma facie showing that defendatrts subject to personaljudsdiction. ae Blectonics for Imasina Inc. v. Covle.340F.3d 1344,1349(Fed.Cir. 2003); Wilso& 20 F.3dat 648; Asarco.Inc. v. Glenam.Ltd.. 912 F,2d 784,785 (5th Cir. 1990). In the proceduralpostureofa motion to disniss, "a dist ict court ftust acceptthe uncontrovertedallegationsin th plaintiffs complaint astrue and resolveany faotualconllicts h the affidavits ir fte plaintiffs favor." ggylc, 340 F.3d at 1349;D.J. Invs.. Inc. v. MetzelerMotorc\,cleTire Asent Greee.Inc.. 7 54F.2d 542, 545 ( 5 t h Cir. 1985). The exercise of pe$onal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendnt comports with the constitutional guaranteeof due processit (l) th6 defendad has purposoly availed itself of the benefits ard protectionsofthe forum stateby stablishing"minimum cootacts"u.ith the statesuch that (2) exercisingjudsdiction does not offend "traditional notions of faii play and substandal j u s t i c e . "EgI&ALEilhEs& 21 F.3dat 1565(quotiog v. 326 Int'l Shoe Wash.. U.S.310,316(1945) & citing Buser Kinq Corp. v. Rudzeryicz.471U.5. 462,474 (1985)),

Page4 of 14

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 209

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 5 of 14

A,

MINIMUM CoNTAcrs

sulfrces to establish The critical issue jlr determining whether any set of circumstances "purposefrllyavailfed]itselfofthe privileg is minimum contacts whetherthenofiesident defeadant of conductingaotivities within the forum state, thus invokirg the benefits and protectionsof its laws." Bllgqlllg 471 U.S. at 475. When anabzing whethersufficient minimum contactsexist

the defendant, \r.ith a forum state,the cowt is to foouson the relationshipsamongthe non_resident forum state,and the litigation at issu. S!!4]&ry,I&iEgf, 433 U.S. 186,204 (1977). Judsdiction contactsv/ith the forum is not properwhen a defendantonly hasrandom,fottuitous, or attenuated state,or due to the unilateral activity of anothrpaxtyol a third person. BureerKine.471U S. at havefair waming that a particular activity may 475. This standard helps ensurethat non-rcsidents subjectthem to litigation within the foruE. Beverlv Hills Fan.2l F.3d at 1565. B. FAIR PLAYANDSUBSTANTIALJUSTICE

a Notwithstandingits comporhnent with dueprocess, noffesident defend@tmay defeatthe justic" militat agai$t exercise ofpeNonaljudsdiction ifit canshowthat "fair play andsubstantial (1987); BulserKine. AsahiMetalIndus. Superior v. Court,480V.5.102,121'22 s u c hanexercise. 'are limited to tle 471IJ.5. at 417. "[S]uch defeats ofotheMise constitutiooalpo$onaljurisdiction interBt in adjudioatingthe disputein th raresituationin which theplaintiffs interestandthe state's by forull arc so attenuated they are clearly outweighed the burdenof subjecting the defendant that to litigation within the fonm.'" Abg,45 F.3d at 1549(quotingBevrlvHills Fan.21 F.3dat 1568). The follov/ing factorsa.re be considrd the ooDrtwhen conductingan inquiry offair to by ofthe justice: ( I ) the burdenupon the non-residentdefendant;(2) the interests play andsubstantial relif; (4) the inte$tatejudioial s,tem'sinterests forum state;(3) the plaintiffs interestsin securing P a g e of 14 5

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 209

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 6 of 14

ofthe sevem.l in obtaidng the most efficient rcsolutionofoontroversies; (5) the sharedinterests and statesin firrthering fimdamentalsubstantive socialpolicies. !gggg$4g 471U.S. 4t 4'76-77.

The faimess faoton cannot of themslvesinvest the coult with jurisdiction over a non-residentdefendantwhen the minimwn contaotsanalFis weighs against the xercise of jurisdiction. World-Wide Volkswaeen Corp. v. Woodson. 444 V,S. 286,294 (1980). The adioipate being haledinto defendant's actionsmustjustify the conclusionthat it shouldreasorlably court in the forum state, A. at 297. Hence,rmilateml activity of the plaintiff is il$ufficient to jwisdiction over the defendaut.@ establishpersonal jurisdiction puposes is anallzed for both specific and A defendant's contactsfoi personal generaljurisdiction. II. SPNCF'ICJURISDICTION A nodesident defendant's contacts with theforum statethat ariseftom, or aredirecflyrelated de to, the cause ofaction aresufficient to give rise to specificjurisdiction. HlicobterosNaoionales judsdictionmay ariseeven where C o l o m b i aS.A.v, Hall.466 U.S.408,414n8 (1984).Specifio " the oonresident defendant neversetfoot in the forum state. Bgllig4:gJ$llglpi9, 895 F.2d 213, has 2 1 6 (5thCir. 1990). the when the court exercises specificjurisdiction over a no[esident defendant, quantityof defendant's contactsneednot be grcat. Even a single substantialact may pemit the exerciseof p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . v. La Cieneea Ham MusicCo..4F.3d413,415(5thCir. 1993).TheSupreme Court has stated:"If the sale ofa prcduct ofa manufaatureror distributor . . . is oot simply an isolatedoccurence,but arisesftom the efforts ofthe [defendant]to serve,dircctly or indirecd, the marketfor its product , . . it is llot unreasonable subjett it to suit." World-Wide Volkswaqen.444 to P a g e of 14 6

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 209

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 7 of 14

lJ.S. at 291. This is particularly true whetr the puposeful act involves the placing of an accused productin anintentionally established disbibution chamel, iq, into the " streamofcotrmerce" with the expectationor rcasonable that it will reachthe forum state U. at 297-98;Beverlv foreseeability H i l l s Fan-21 F.3dat 1565-66; !g4q 4 F.3dat416. what is impofia[t is whether the defendantdelibetely engagedin sigrificant activities within the forum or has createdcontinuing obligationsbetweenitself and residentsofthe forum, there Buleer King- 471U.S. at maaifestiagan avaiJment the privilege ofoonducting business of 471-76. when the nonresideot's by activities areshielded thebenefitsaodprctectionsofthe forum's laws, it is prsumptivelyreasonable requirethe defendrotto submit to the burderlsof litigatioa to proximately result ftom in the forum. Id. Thoreforo,jurisdiction is plopet "wherethe oontaEts with the forum State," !!. actionsby the defendantthat cleate a substantialcormection IIL GENERIILJURISDICTION to If the defendanfscontactswith the forum statearenot directly relate-d the plaintiffs cause "codinuous of actioq theywill still suffioe to stablishgeneraljurisdiction ifthey are sufficiently and systematic"to suppoi a reasonable ofjudsdiction. !9!!99glc!9!, 466 U.S. at415-16; exeroise Keeton v. Hustler Maqazine.Inc., 465U.s. 770,'779-80(1984); g993lsqHolr Oil & Gas Com. v. Egq9y, 801 F.2d'113, 177-79 (5th Cn, 1986) (explaining couds are rcquired to examine a nonresidertdefendantl contacts'rintoto to determine whethertheyconstitutethekind ofcontinuous and systematiccontactsrequiredto satisrydueprocessr'). Suchumelatedcontactsmust be "substatrtial"to supportgeneEljurisdiotion. !4h9& 20 notedbythe Supreme Court F . 3 d a t649(citingKeeton.465 U.S.at7?9n.11).Substetialcontaots in 6991!qIinclude "a oontinuousand slstematic supervision"of oorpomteactivities in the forum P a g e7 of 14

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 209

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 8 of 14

state;the location ofcorpoDte files there;the holding ofdirectoN'metings there;the maintenance decisionsthere. K!9!9& 465 of substantialaccountsin the forum; and the making ofkey business U.S. at 779 n.11. The Kgglg! Court additionally notedthe forum itr questionwas the p.incipal, albeit temlorary, place ofbusinessfor the defendant to seekitrg avoid ptsonaljudsdiction &. jurisdictiou include the nonresident's ownership Otherfactorsrolied upon to upholdgeneral businessdealingsthereinto ofreal estafein fhe forum state;tavel to tle forum state;andexteDsive such an extent the Fifil Circuit has found "constad and extensive personal and business 801 F.2d at 779. Other

connectio.s" with the forum statethroughouttle nomesidenfslife. !g[,

facto$ includemaintenance ofoffices in the forurtr;residenoe ofemployeesor officers in the forum; ownershipofpersonal propedy in the forum; mai4tsnance telephonelisting or mailing address ofa in the forum; and negotiation in the foruh by agentsor office$ of the nouesident defendant. D o m i n i o nGasVontruos. v. N.L.S..Inc.,889F. Supp. 265,268 (N.D. Tex. 1995). Inc. AIYALYSIs Applying the foregoinggeneralrules of law to this case,the coult is to detemine whether venueproperlyexistedat thetime Datatreasury's complaintwas filed. EgbaqJ.B!4lbl 363 U.S.

335,342-44 (1960). Venuein patedtcases determined is basedon a personaljurisdiotionanallsis. V E Holdine.917F.2dat 1584. As state4 this court appliesthe law ofthe FederalCirouit to detemine whetherpeisonal jurisdiction canbe exercisedover atrout-of-statedefndant a patentinfringenent case. As pafi in ofthe personaljurisdictionanalysis, courtconsideN whetherit hasspecificor generaljurisdiction the o v e rSVPCo.

P a g e8 of 14

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 209

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 9 of 14

SPECIFIC JURISDICTION In the Fedeial Circuit, speoificju.isdiotion oxistswhen the plaintiff satisfiesa tbree-Fong test by showing: (1) the defendantpurposef lly directedits activities at the forum state; (2) the plaintiffs claims arise out of those activities; and (3) assertionof personaljurisdiction over the defndantis "rcasonable fair." 1!b9, 45 F.3d at 1545-46. and While a singleactcanbe enoughto trigger specificjurisdictior! the coud looks at the tota.lity ofthe circumstances detemine whtherlhe aotwas substantial, ofsuch a purposefiil nahre to !9. personal t h a texercising 772 comporb with dueprocess. Stuaflv. SpademarL F.2dI 185, iurisdiction I 192(5thCir. 1985); Cir. Hvdrokinetics. v. Alaska hc. Mechanical. 700F.2d1026,1028(5t1t Ino.. 1983). 35 U.S.C. $ 271 defitrespateDtinfiiogemetrt as follows: (a) ExoE t asotherwise providedin this title, whoeverv/ithout authorifymakes,usos, offersto sel1, sellsaDy patentod or itrventio!, $.ithin theUdted States impods into or the United Statesany patentedinvention dudng the tenn of the patent therefor, infringesthe patent. O) Wloever activelyinducesinfringernentofa patentshall be liable asan inftinger. (c) Whoeveroffersto sell or sellswithin the United States imports into the United or States a component of a patnted maching madufaature, combirEtron or composition,or a material or appamtusfor use in practicing a patentedprocess, cotrstitutinga materialpart ofthe inventioo,knovringth sameto be especially made or especiallyadaptedfor use in an inftiogement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commeicesuitablefor substantialnoninfringing use, shall b e liableas a conrributory infringer. . . . 3 5U.S.C. 271(3003). $ Dataheasury of claims that poNonaljurisdiction exists"specifically over SVPCo because S\?Co's conduct inrnakin& using,selling,offeringto sell, and/orimporting, direcdy, contributodly,

P a g e9 of 14

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 209

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 10 of 14

and,/or inducernent, by infringing productsand serviceswithin the Stateof Texasand within this district, in particular for J.P.Morgan Chase,an infriaging Defendantin the United statesDistrict Courl for the EastemDistrict ofTexas." Colnpl. at fl 4. SVPCoasserts tbroughthe alfrdavit ofsusan E. Irn& seniorvice presidentofs\?Co, that to it hasno oJficesor employees the StateofTcxas, is not liceDsed do businessm, aod doesnot in do business the StateofTexas. D. Mot. at Irng affidavit f 2. Ms. Irng irther stats in that since 1998,SVPCo }as provjded through a subsidiaryan electrcnic servicefor xpeditingbaok check ("ECP). U, atlJ3. The ECP servicecurrenllyis used clearingcalled electlolric checkpresetrftnent by twenty-six banks and the FederalReserve, 14. It pennits banks to exchangoaheckpaj4[ent information electronicallybut doesnot involve the exchaDge images- the subjectofthe patents of ir! suit in this action. U. Eachbankusing the ECP servicedoesso ftom one or more ECP facilities. Id. at !l 4. None of the bants that use or have usedthe ECP sorvicehave done so ftom any such facility in this distdct. @ In addition, SVPComaintainsa publicly aocessible internetwebsitothat pmvidasinformation aboutits sen'ices,but suchselvicesaft not availablethmughthe wesbsite.E. a ttl6. Dataheasuryrebuts the Long alfidavit with an alhdavit ftom a Lindsey Whitehead and PowerPoint slides attachedto the alfrdavit submittedwith their responseto Str?Co's motron. Tbrough Ms. Whitehead's affidavit and the slides, Datatreasuryassertsthat Ms. Long made a prcsentationon Mafth 2, 2004, at a BAf Check21 IrnplementationPlanning Clinic ir Orlando, Florida. In theprcsentation, Long allegedlyrcpreseoted SVPCois currendyeogaged the in Ms. that businessof image excha[ge on a nahonwide level, and that she did not replesentthat S\?Co excludedthe EastemDistrict ofTexas fiom its business st|ategy. P. Resp.at Whiteheadaffidavit P a g e of 14 10

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 209

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 11 of 14

S\?Co assertsthrough a secondaffidavit ofSusan Irng that in the speechshe gave on March 2, 2004,in Orlando, shedescribeda peer-to-peer imaging network that, as of March 2004, S\?Co wasplanning to intoduoo. D. Reply at Long affidavit fJ4. Sucha network was first tested on June 8, 2004, but no testing occured in the EastemDistict of Texas. &. Moreover, sucha networkhasnot becomeoperationalany hercin theUnited States.E. Thisnetworkwouldbeused by a numberoflarge banks'datacenters, SVPCohasno plansto include auy datacenterin the but that sheis EastemDistrict of Texasand hastakenno stepsto do so. Id. Ms. Long fiulher assefts not awareofatry conductby SVPCodut could be describedas "making, using, selling offering to sell, and/orimporting,directl, contributorily,andTor inducement" productsor sewiceswithin any by the EastemDistrict ofTexas. E. at f 5. An aficle submitted by Dataheasuryas an exhibit to tbeir supplementalrspoNe that appeared the "Informationweek" websiteon September 2004, states: on 3, Key Bank and J.P. Moigan Chase& Co. have inaugurateda check-irnage-sharing proglaln using Irmge ExchangeNetwork, atr image exohrnge systen owned and operatedbySmall Value Payments Co., a consortiumoflarge balks. Key andChase haveconcludeda two-month pilot andexpectto increase volume ofimages they the exchange year and next. this Inag Exchange Network enables banksofall sizesto clearand settlecheckimages directly or through third partiessuchasthe FderalReserve. By allowing banksto create digitized. imagesof pzpet ch*ks. il eliminates tho xpflse of physically transportingthem betweenbanks. P. Suppl.Resp.at Ex. A. The article showsthat S\?Co potentially perfonns inftinging activities with J.P. Moan ChaseBank, who is a defendantcurntly subjectto perso&l jwisdiction ard venueinthis district for allegedpalentinftingemntofthe sarne'988 and '137 patents.Dgle@esgdl

Page 11of i4

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 209

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 12 of 14

(E.D.Tex.filed June Com.v. J.P.MoreanChase. a1., et Civil ActionNo. 5:02-CV-124-DF-CMC 5, 2002). The article also showsthat SVPComay havea corrrercial relationshipwith the Federal Reserve Bank that includespotentially infringing activitieswith regardto the claims ofthe '988 and

Accepting tlrc allegationsin Datatreasury'scomplaint as true and resolvirg the factual conflictBin the affidavits andthe documentation favor. attached thoseaffidovits in Dataheasurv's to the court find6 Datatrcasury's allegationsto b rmconboverted.The coult also finds that sufficient widence hasbeenpresented find that: (1) SWCo purposefullydirectedits iDfringing activities to at the EastemDistrict of Texas through its alfiliation rvith J.P. MorSan Chaseand the Federal (2) pated infringenrentclaimsariseout ofs\?Co's activilies; and (3) due Reserve: Dataheasury's to SVPCo's potentially infringing activities in this district, assertionofperconal jurisdiction ovr S\?Co would be "reasonable fair." atrd For thesereasons, court finds it has speoificjudsdiction over SVPCo. the IL GENERAL JURISDICTION Even if SWCo's cotrtactswith the EastemDishict of Texas are not directly related to Dataheasury'scauseofaction for patent infriogerner4 they will stil1 sulfrce to establishgeneral judsdiction ifthey aresuffioiently "cotrtinuousands)Etematio" suppot a reasotrable to exercise of jurisdiction. Helicooteros,466 U.S. at415-16. Suchunrelatedoontactsmust be "substantial"to supportgeneraljurisdiction. Wih@ 20 F.3d at 649. Datatreasuyclaimsthat "lp]eNomljurisdiction existsgenerallyover S\?Co pu$uant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1391because has sufficient minimum contact[s]with the forum as a result ofbusiness it conductedwithin the State of Texas and {.ithin this district." Compl. at tl 4. However, even P a g e12of 14

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 209

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 13 of 14

acceptingastlue the allgationsilr Datatreasury's complaint,the court cannotresolvethe foregoing factualconflicts in th afndavits aod attached favor. Insufficient documentation Datatreasury's in evidencehasbeenpresented find tlat SVPCo's contactswith the EastemDistrict ofTexas ar to adequately ofgeneral jurisdiction over continuousand systematic supporta reasotrable exeacise to it. Thercfore,eventhoughthe coult finds it hasspecificjurisdiotiotr over SVPCo,it cannotfind that jurisdiction over S\?Co. it has general III. FAIR PLAY AI{D SIJBSTANTIAL JUSTICE jurisdiction over S\?Co in this distict comportswith the The exerciseof specificpersonal justice becau6e: the burdenon SVPCo is small given requirements fair play and substantial of (l) its directedactivities at the EastemDishict ofTexas, SVPCo'savailmentofthe protectionofTexas laws, and the reasotrable foreseeablityofs\?Co being haled into court in the EastemDistrict of

Texasbasedon its national and affiliated activities in the district; (2) the distdct has an loterestin pumuing potential patent intringors in its jurisdiction; (3) Datatreasuryhas chosenthis forum to secue rclief from S\aPCo's alleged infiinging activities; (4) pursuing ihe iNtant action ilr this distdot alleviatesanotherfederaldistrict court fiom havingto rcsolvethe dispute;and(5) exercising personal jurisdiction in this di6trict will help pleselveih integrity ofthe patentsystemby ensuring the righls ofinventors to be free ftom itrfringing activitiesby allegdinfringers. Bureer King. 471 U .5. at 476-7"1 .

CONCLUSION Based theforcgoing on is aral]sis, tbecoudfirds vsrue in this case properin theEastem jurisdiction DistrictofTexasbecause courthasspecific with the Ore overS\ryCo,whichcompofis general requirements not offair playandsubstantialjustice. However, courtfindsit does have the
P a g e13of 14

Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC

Document 209

Filed 06/23/2006

Page 14 of 14

jurisdiction over defendant contacts SVPCodueto a lack ofevidenceofcontinuous and systernatic by SVPCoin the distdct. Therefore,the cou?tORI)ERS that defendant SrDallValue Pa),nent Company'sMotion to Dismiss for ImproperVenue (Dkt No. 2), filed Jure l, 2004, is DENIED. *-\ day ofNovenber 2004.

SIGNED this

\l

lE

DAVID FOLSOM DISTRICTJIJDGE I-].NITED STATES

N-Se&^--.--

P a g e14of 14