Datatreasury Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al

Filing 211

RESPONSE to Motion re #84 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or in the Alternative, for Failure to State a Claim or for a More Definite Statement (First Citizens Bancshares) filed by Datatreasury Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit #2 Exhibit #3 Exhibit #4 Text of Proposed Order)(Bruster, Anthony)

Download PDF
Datatreasury Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al Doc. 211 Att. 3 Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC Document 211 Filed 06/23/2006 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERNDISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DII'NION DATATREASURYCOR}, Plaintiff, t :1.ri-i-i.':.: r. r i . . . , . , 1 _1 ; i : 0 r ; I 7 Afi8:38 il3Y , j ii ; r i r a i i n i i iw SMALL VALUE PAYMENTSCO., Deferdant s s s s ORDf,R $ $ $ 2rM-CV-85-DF $ $ Before the court is defendarlt Small Value PalanentCompany's Motion to Dismiss for hnproperVenue(Dkt No. 2), filed Jtme1, 2004. After review of thebriefing by the partiesandthe facts aod law ofthis matter,the court finds defendant's motion shouldbe DENIED. BACKGROUND This is a patentinfringeme case broughtbyplaintiffDatatreasuy Cory. (hereafter referred to as "Dataheasury'), on March 2, 2004, againstdefendantSmall Value PaymentsCo. (hereafter refered to as "Sl?Co') for infringemetrtof U.S. PatntNos. 6,032,137(the "'137 pateft') a\d, (the 5 , 9 1 0 , 9 8 8 "'988 patent'). Datatreasury aDelawarecorpotion with its prinoipalplaoeofbusinessin Mellville, New is York. S\?Co is a Delawarelimited liability company that maintainsits principal placeofbusiness in New York, New York. Compl. at fllJ 1-2. Datatreasuryclaims that SVPCo has been and currently is "infringing the '988 and '137 patentsby making, using, selling, olfering for sale,and/or importing in or irlto the United States, directly, contributoil, and/or by inducement,without authority, products and servicesthat fall P a g eI of 14 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC Document 211 Filed 06/23/2006 Page 2 of 14 within the scopeofthe claims ofthe '988 and '137 patents,including but not limited to electronic clearingandpoint-of-salecheck-to-debitservices." Id. at fl 8. As this action arise6underthe patent laws ofthe United Statesand Title 35 ofthe United (1999). States Code,the coufi hasjurisdictionover this actionpusuant to 28 U.S,C.$ 1338(a) SVPCo,however,movesthe court underFederalRule of Civil Procedue 12(bX3)to dismissthis action for imorooervenu. GENERAL RIJLESOF LAW VENIJE Beoause is a suit for patentintingmmt, the law ofthe United StatesCourt ofAppeals this for tho Fedeml Circuit and not the Fifth Circrdt binds this ooult, even a6 to matte$ conceming personaijurisdiction and the closely related issueof venue. SggEgygdlHillqEgq..lqq.J-8Bl4l Sovereien (Fed.Cir. 1994)(stating Corp,.21 F.3d 1558,1564-65 issues ofpeFonal that,although jurisdiction aregenerallyproceduralia natue, theyaresufEoientlyrelatedto substantive patentlaw, andthusthe law ofthe FderalCircuit controls). TheFederalCircuit however,defercto the law of the regional circuits to rcsolve non-substantive patent issues. Sgg Amana Refriqeration.Inc. v. Ouadlux.h9- 172F.3d 852, 856 (Fed.Cir 1999)(tlis court is "generully guidedby the law ofthe regional 'circuit to which district court appeals nomally lie, u essthe issuepefiaiosto or is mique to patentlaw") (citation omitted). Venuerelatesto the locality in which a lawsuit may be brought. Minn. Min. & Mfe. Co. v. Eco Chen- Inc.. 757 F.2d 1256, 1264(Fed,.Cir. 1985)(citing Neirbo v. Betllehem Shipbuildine egfp- 308 U,S. 165, t67-68 0939). The purposeofa venuerequirementis to pmtect defoodaats from being forced to defendlawsuitsin a oourt remotefiom thet residenceor from wherethe acts P a g e of 14 2 Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC Document 211 Filed 06/23/2006 Page 3 of 14 underlying controversy the ocoulrcd. @84F.3d 1 4 1 0(Fed.Cir. 1996). 1408, Thevenuestatute relatingto patentinfringementclairN provides:"Anycivil actionforpatent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defe[daot resides,or where the defendant coDnitted actsof infringementandhasa regularaad established place ofbusiness." has "resides"for verue purposes, 28 U.S.C. $ 1400(b)(1999). In detemining wherea defendant couds must look to the generalvenuestatute,28 U.S.C. $ 1391(c)(2002). VE Holdinq Corp. v. JohrNon G a sAooliance Co..917F.2d 1574,15?8(Fed.CiI. 1990). Seotioa 1391(c) providesl For pu{rosesofvenue underthis chapter,a defndant that is a corporationshall be jurisdiotion deemed residein anyjudicial district ia which it is subjectto personal to at the time the action is mrunenced. In a Statewhich has more than onejudicial distict ard iD which a defendart that is a corpomtion is $ubjeot to perconal jurisdiction at the time the action is coomenced,suchcorporationshall be deemed to residein any dishict in that Statewithin which its contactswould be sufficient to subjectit to peNoraljurisdiotion ifthat distdct wre a sepaEteState,an4 ifthere is no suchdistrict the oorporationshallbe deerned residein the disnict wi0rin which to it hasthe most significaot contacts. 28 U.S.C. $ 1391(c). Readingthe statutestogether,Datatreasury must demonstmtethat pe$onal jurisdiction over SVPCo exists in the Eastem District of Texas,and cannot ag$egate SVPCo's contactswithin the entte Stateof Texasto establishthat venueis proper in this district. A nol-resident defendantis subjectto peNonaljudsdiction ia a federal district cowt if: (1) the defrdant is within the reaohofthe forum state'slong ann statute;and (2) due procersis satisfred.SegBeverlvHills Fan.2l F.3d at 1569(statiry that couts must look to thetelevantstate's long-alm statuteeven when the causeof action is purely federal). Beoausethe Texaslotrg-allll statuteis co-extensive \rith the limits ofdue process, Bearrvv. BeechAircraft Com.. 818F.2d 370, 312 (5lh Cir. 1987), fte cowt's sole inquiry is whetherthe exerciseof personaljurisdiction over P a g e3 of 14 Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC Document 211 Filed 06/23/2006 Page 4 of 14 SVPCocomports with dueprocess, @ 84F.3d424, (stating 4 2 1 (Fed,. Cir.1996);seea.lso Alro Corp.v. Luker.45 F.3d 1541,15+l @ed.Cir. 1995) jurisdiction over a norieident deferdantin federalqueshoncases to federalcoMs havepersonal the extentthat fedeBl constitutionaldueprocesslimits allow). Although Datatreasury bearsthe burden of establishingcontactsby SvPCo sufficient to invoke thejurisdiction ofthis court, I4he4LBslb 20F.3d,M4,648 (sthcir 1994),the Federal andFiftl Circuitsagree wherea distict couIt'sdispositionofthe personaljurisdictionalqustion that is basedon affdavits andotherwritten materialsin the absence ofan evidentiaryheadry" a plaintiff need only to make a prima facie showing that defendatrts subject to personaljurisdiction. are Electmniosfor Irnaeine.Inc. v. Covle.340F,3d1344,1349G ed.Cir 2003);XAboe 20 F.3dat 648; A s a r c o . I n c .v. Glenam. Ltd..912F.2d184,785 (sth Cir. 1990). In the procedural posture ofa motion to disrniss,"a district court must acceptthe uncontrovertedallegationsin the plaintiffs complaint astrue andresolveany factual conflicts in the alfrdavits in the plaintiffs favor." Qq$g 340 F.3d at 1349; D.J. Invs.. Inc. v. Metzeler MotorcvcleTire Aeent Greqe.Inc.. 754F.2d 542,545 ( 5 t h Cir. 1985). The exercise of personaljurisdiction over a oonresident defendant comports with the constitutional guarantee due processif: (l) the defendanthas purposely availed itself of the of "minimum contacts"\r.ith the statesuch beoefltsandprototionsofthe foruln stateby establishing that (2) exercisingjudsdiction does not offend "haditional notions of fair play and substantial j u s t i c o . "Beverlv Ei1lsFan.2l F.3dat 1565(quoting EglsbggJ.yg$& citing Bureer Kine Com. v. Rudzewicz.471V,5. 462,474 (1985)). 326U.S.310,316( 1945) P a g e of 14 4 Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC Document 211 Filed 06/23/2006 Page 5 of 14 A. MINIMUM CONTACTS The critical issue in deternining whether aoy set of circunstances suffices io establish "purposefirlly avail[ed]itsefofthe pdvilege minimum contacts whetherthenoffesidsnt defendant is of conductiogapti\ritieswithin th forwn state, thus invoking the benefits and protectionsof its laws." B!{gglKbg, 471 U.S, at 475. W1lenanal,ziog whethet sufficient minimum contactsexrst 'with a forum state,the coud is to focus on the relationships the amongthe oon-resided defendant, forum state,andthe litigation at issue. S!3&ry.Egbg!, 433 U.S. 186,204 (1977). Judsdiction contactswith the forum is not proper when a defendantonly hasmndom,fortuitous, or attenuated state,or due to the unilateral activity of anotherparty or a third person ElfgqKiag, 471 U.S at 475. This standard helps ensue that non-residents havefair warning that a particular activity rnay subjectthem to litigation within the forum. EgydI-H1!b-E44 21 F.3d at 1565 B. FAIR PLAYANDSUBSTANTTAL JUSTICE may defeatthe Notwithstandingits comportonent with dueplooess,a nonresidsntdefendant exerciseofpersonaljurisdictiotrifit canshowthat "fair play andsubstantialjustice"militate against suchanexercise.Asahi Metal Indus.v. SuoeriorCourt. 48OV.S.102,l2l'22 (1987);BureerKinq. jurisdiction 'ate limited to the 471U .5. at 477. "[S]uch defeats ofotherwise constitutiooalprsonal intercstin adjudicatingthe disputein the raresituationin which theplaintifes interestandthe state's by forum areso attnuated they are clearly outweighed the buden of subjectingthe defendant that to litigation within the forum."' lb, 45 F.3d at 1549(quotingBeverlvHills Fan.2l F.3d at I 568). The following factoN are to be con6idered the court when conductingan inquiry of fair by justice: ( 1) the burdenupon the tron-resident defendadq(2) the interastsofthe play and substantial judicial s'tem'sinterets rclief; (4) the interstat forum state;(3) the plaintiffs interests seouring in Page5 of 14 Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC Document 211 Filed 06/23/2006 Page 6 of 14 in obtainingthe most elfrcient rsolutionofconftovercies;and(5) the sharcdinterestsofthe seveml stalesin firthering fi$damental substmtive socialpolicies. B!!!qK4& 47lU.S.at476-71 The faimess facto$ cannot of themselvesitrvest the coult with jurisdiction over a non-residentdefendant when the minimum contacts aoalysis weighs against the xercise of jurisdiction World-Wido Volkswaeen Corp, v. Woodson. 444 V.S. 286,294 (1980). the anticipatebeing haledinto defendant's actionsmustjustify the conclusionthat it shouldreasonably cowt in the forum state. H. ar297. Hence,unilateml activify ofthe plaintiffis itsulfrcient to jurisdiction ovei the defendant. E. establishpersonal is A defendanfscontactsfor pelsoral jurisdictiod purposes anallzed for both specificand generajurisdiction. l IL SPECIFICJURJSDICTION A nomesident defendant's contacts with the forum statethat arisefrom, ol ardirectly related Nacionales de to, th cause ofaction aresufficient to give dse to specificjudsdiction. Helioooteros jurisdiction may ariseeverwhere C o l o m b i aS.A,v, HaIl.466U.S.408,414n.8 (1984).Specific . the nonresident defendant neversetfoot in the fonun state. Bgl!i94!3lbEp:i9,895 has 2 1 6 (5tl Cir. 1990). defendant, quantityof the when the court exercises specificjurisdiction over a nonre-sident ilefendant'scotrtactsneednot be grcat. Eveu a single substantialact may permit the xerciseof 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).TheSuFeme Court has stated:"If the sale ofa product ofa manufactder or distributor . . . is not simply an isolatedoccurrence, arisesftom the efforts ofthe [defendant]to serye,directly or indireotly,the but to marketfor its product . . . it is not uffeasotrable subjeotit to suit." World-Wide Volkswaeen.'|44 P a g e6 of 14 F.2d 213, Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC Document 211 Filed 06/23/2006 Page 7 of 14 \J.5. a129'7. This is particularly tfue when the purposefulact involves the placinS ofan accused productin anintntionally established dishibution channel, into the "stleamofcommerce"with iithe expectationor reasonable foreseeabilitythat it will reachthe forum stat. Id. at 297-98;Bq94y H i 1 l sFan-21 F.3dat 1565-66: H@" 4 F.3d at 416. wlat is important is whether the defendarf dliberatelyengagedin signiflcant activities within the forum or has createdcontinuing obligationsbetweenitself and rcsidentsofthe forxm, manifestingan availmentofthe privilege ofconducting businessthere. Buleei King. 471 U.S. at 471-76. Whenthe nonresident's activitiesareshieldedby thebenefitsarrdprotectionsofthe forum's laws, it is presumptivelyreasonable requfue defendantto submit to the burdensof litigation to the in tho forum, ld. Therofore,judsdiotion is prcper "where the contactsproximately result ftom actionsby the defendant that createa substantialconnectionwith the forum State." Id. IIL GEITDRAI.JURISDICTION Ifthe defendant's contacts with the forum statearenot dircctly relaledto theplahtiffs oause jurisdiction ifthey are sufficiently "continuous ofaction, they will still suffic to establishgeneral and systematic"to supporta rcasonable exerciseofjurisdiction. g9!!99p!g9s,466 U.S. at415-16; Keeton v. Hustler Masazine.Inc.. 465U.S.'770,'779-80(1984); cgg-dEsE9!!QiL&-Gsce94.! Eglggtf 801 F.2d 773,7'7'l-79 (5th Cir. 1986) (explaining courts are required to examine a "in cotrtacts toto to detemine whetherthey constitutethe kind ofcontinuous oonresidendefendant's t al1dsyslematiccontactsrequiredto satisrydue process"). to Suchunrelatedcontactsmust be "substar$ia1" supportgeneraljurisdiction. [i]ggg, 20 Court notedbythe Supleme contacts F . 3 d a t649(citingKeeton.465 U.S,at 779n.l1). Substantial in 499!94 include "a continuousand sldematic supervision"of corporateaotivities in the forum P a g e7 of 14 Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC Document 211 Filed 06/23/2006 Page 8 of 14 stateithe location of coryolatefi1esthere;the holding ofdirectors'meetingsthere;the maintenance decisionsthere. 899!94 465 of substantia.l accountsin the forum; and the making ofkey business U.S- at 779 n.l l. The 5991@ Cout additionally noted the forum in questionwas the principal, albeit tempory, pla.e ofbusiness for the defendant seekingto avoid penonal jurisdiction. !. jurisdiction iocludethe nomesidetrt's o\r.netship Otherfactorsrelied uponto uphold geneml dealingsthe@itr to ofreal estatein the forum state;travel to the forum state;andextensivebusiness such an extent the Fifth Circuit has found "constant and extensive personal and business coDnectionswith the forum statethroughoutthe noiresideot'slife. lqt " 801 F.2d at 779. Otler factorsincludemaintenance ofolfrces in the forum; residelrce ofemployeeso! offrcersin the forum; o*mershipofpersonal propertyin the forwn; maintena.rce telephonelisting or mailing address ofa in the fonrm; and negotiation in the fonun by agentsor office$ ol the nomesidentdefendant. D o m i a i o nGasVontruos. v. N.L.S..Inc.,889F. Supp. hc. 265,268 CN.D. Tex. 1995). AIYALYSN Applying tJteforegoinggeneralrules of law to this case,the cout is to detenninewhether venueproperlyexistedat the time Datatreasuiy'scomplaintwasfiled. EqbaaJ-B!4lkt 363 U.S. 335,342-44 (1960). Venue in patentcases dotsmined basedor a peFonaljurisdiction anal)6is. is V E Holdinq.917F.2dat 1584. As stated,this court appliethe law ofthe FederalCircuit to detemine whetherpersonal jurisdiction can be exercisedover an out-of-statedeferdantin a patentinfringement care. As part ofthe personaljurisdictionanalJEis, court co[siderswhetherit hasspecificor generaljudsdiction the o v e rSVPCo. P a g e8 of 14 Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC Document 211 Filed 06/23/2006 Page 9 of 14 I. SPf,CIFICJURISDICTION juisdiction existswhentheplaintiffsatisfies three-prctrg a In theFederal Circuit,gpecific purposefully testby shor.ing:(l) the defendant its at dircoted aotivities the forum state;(2) the jurisdictionoverthe plaintiffs claimsariseout of thoseactivities;and(3) assertion pemonal of defendant "reasonable fat." $!9, 45 F.3dat 1545-46, is and Whileasingle canbeenough triggerspecificjurisdictio& cout looksatthetotality act to the ofthe circuostances deteminev/hethr actwassubstantial, ofsucha purposeful natue to the !9. thatexercising personaljudsdiction oomports dueprocess. with !!u4J.rs!gle!0eg 772F,2t1185, (5th (5th 1 1 9 2 Cir.1985); Hvdrokinetics. v. Alaska 1028 Cir. Inc. Mechanical. 700F.2d1026, Inc.. 1983). 35 U.S.C.$ 271defines patent infiingement follows: as (a)BxcErtasothrwise provided thistitle,whoever in \dthoutauthority maks, uses, offersto sell,or sellsanypatented or into invention, withh theUnitedStates imports the United States patented any inventiondwing the term of the patenttherefor, inftinges patent. th actively fuduce,s ilfringement apatent of shallbeliabieasaninfringer. O) Whoever (c) Whoever offersto sellor sellswithintheUnitedStates importsintotheUnited or States a componentof a patentedmachine,manufaoture, combinationor compositior!or a materialor apparatus usein practicinga patented prccess, for constituting material oftheinve[tion,knowiog same beespecially a part tho to made or especially adapted usein an inAitrgement suchpatent,andnot a staple for of articleor cornmodity ofoommerce suitable substantial foi noninfringing shall use, beliableasa contribulory infrirger . . . . (3003). 3 su.s.c.s 271 Datatreasury of olaims that personaljurisdiction exists "specifically over SVPCobecause S\ryCo'sconductin making,usirg, selling,offeringto sell,and/orimpoiing, directly, contributorily, P a g e of 14 9 Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC Document 211 Filed 06/23/2006 Page 10 of 14 and/orby inducement,infinging productsand serviceswithin the StateofTexas and within this Disaiot district, in particular for J.P. Morgan Chase,an infringing Defeodantin the United States C o u dfor theEastem Dishiot ofToxas." Compl.at'!J4. E. SVPCoasserts throughthe affidavit of Susan I-ong, seniorvice presidett of S\ryCo, that it hasIro offices or mployees th StateofTexas, is not licelrsedto do businessin, anddoesnot i[ that smce do business the StateofTexas. D. Mot. at Long alfrdavit'[2. Ms.lrng firlther states in 1998,S\?Co has provided tlrough a subsidiaryan electronicservicefor expediti4 bank check clearingcalled elecboniccheckFesentroed ("ECP). Id. at 113.The ECP servicecurrentlyis used by tv.enty-six banl6 arid the FederalReserve. Id. It pennits banks to exchangecheck palment information electronicallybut doesnot involve the exchange ofirnages - the subjectofthe patents in suit in this action. !. Eachbank usingthe BCP semce doesso from one or more ECP facilities. Id. at lJ 4. No[e ofthe barks that use or haveusedthe ECP seryioehave done so flom any such internetwebsitothat facility in this district. B, In additio4 SWCo maintaiasa publicly accessible providesidormation aboutits sepioes,but suchservices not availablethroughthe wesbsite.Id. are at ll 6. Datatieasurylebuts the Long affidavit with an affdavit fiom a Litrdsey Whitehead and PowerPoint slides attachedto the affidavit subttrittedwith their reponseto SvPCo's motion. Through Ms. Whitehead's aftdavit and the slides, Datatrasuryassertsthat Ms. lrng made a presentationon March 2, 2004, at a BAI Chelk 21 knplementationPlanning Clinic in Orlando, in Florida. In thepresentation, Loog allegedlyrcprsNded SVPCois curently etrgaged the Ms. that businessof image exchangeon a nauonwide level, and that she did Ilot reFesent that S\ryCo excludedthe EastemDisaict ofTexas fom its businessshategy. P. Resp.at Whiteheadaffidavit P a g e10of 14 Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC Document 211 Filed 06/23/2006 Page 11 of 14 ,n 2. S\ryCo assertsthrough a secondaf6davit of SusanIrng that in the speeohshe gave on imaging network tha! as of March 2004, March 2, 2004,in Orlando, shedescribeda peer-to-peer S\?Co wasplanning to inhoduce. D, Reply at Long afndavit !J4. Sucha notwork was first testd on June 8, 2004, but no testillg occurredin the EastomDistrict of Texas. U. Moreover, such a networkhasnot becomeoperationalanyrhere in theunited States.E This network would beused by a numberof largebanks'datacentels,but SVPCohasno plans to include alry datacenterin the that 6heis EastemDistrict of Texasand hastaken no stepsto do so, &. Ms. Long finther asserts not awarcof any conductby S\?Co that could be describedas "making, using, selling, offering to withirl inducement" anyproductsor services sell,and/orimporting,direotly,conhibutodly, and,/orby the EastemDistrict ofTexas. ld. at tl 5. An article submitted by Datatreasuryas an exhibit to their supplementalrepollsethat appearcd the "InformalionWeek" websiteon Septmber 2004, states: on 3, Key Bank and J.P. Morgan Cha6e& Co. have inaugurateda check-funage-sharing program using knage ExohangeNetwork, an idage exchangesystemowned and operated Small Value Payments by Co., a corsortium oflarge barks. Key andChrse pilot andexpectto increase volume ofimages they havecotrcluded two-month a the exchange year and next. this L'nag Exchange and Network enables banksofall sizesto clea.r settlecheckimages directly or throughtbird partiessuchasthe FederalReserve. By allov/ing banksto oreatedigitized images of paper checks,it elimioates the expenseof ph)sically transportingthm betweenbarks. P. Suppl. Resp.at Ex. A. The axticleshowsthat SVPCopotentially performs infringitrg activities with J.P. Morgan ChaseBank, who is a defendantourcntly subjectto persoaaljurisdiction and veauein this district for allegedpatent infringemntoftlrc same'988 aod '137 patent,s. D4lgEegs!ry 11 P a g e of 14 Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC Document 211 Filed 06/23/2006 Page 12 of 14 (E.D.Tex.filed June Com.v. J.P.MoreanChase. al..Civil ActionNo, 5:02-CV-124-DF-CMC et 5, 2002). The article also showsthat SVPComay havea commrcialrelationshipwith the Federal Reserve Bank thal includespotentialtyinfiinging activitieswith regardto tho olaimsofthe ' 1 3 7 patents. Accepting the allegationsin Datatreasury'scomplaint as true and resolving the factual favor, conflicts in the alfrdavitsandthe documentation to attached thoseaffidavits in Dataheasr.ry's the cout finds Datatrea6ury'e allegationsto be rmcontroverted.The cout also finds that suflicient evidencehasbeenpresented find thal (1) SvPCo purposefullydirectedits ia$inging activities to at the EastemDistrict of Texas thrcugh its affiliation with J.P. Morgan Chaseand the Federal Reserve; Dataheasury's (2) patentinfringementclaims ariseout ofs\ryCo's activities; and (3) due to S\?Co's potentially infringiflg a.tivities in this dishict, assertionofpersonal jurisdiotion over S\?Co )vould be "reasonable fair." and For thesereasons, court finds it has specificjurisdiotion over SVPCo. the II. GENNRAL JURISDICTION Even if S\?Co's contactswith the EastemDistrict of Texas arc not directly related to Datatreasury'scauseof action for patent infiingement, they will still suffice to establishgeoeral judsdiction ifthey are sufficiently "continuousandsystematio" supporta reasonable exerciseof to jurisdiction. Helicopteros.466 U.S. at 415-16, Suchuuelatd oontaots must be "substantial"to supportgeneraljurisdiction. Wilso[ 20 F.3d at 649. Dataheasury clafursthat "[p] ersonaljurisdictionexistsgetrelallyover SVPCopursuant 28 to U.S.C. $ 1391because has sufficient minimum contact[s]with the forum as a result ofbusiness it conductedwithin the State of Texas and within this distriot." Compl. at fl 4. However, even '988 and P a g e of 14 12 Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC Document 211 Filed 06/23/2006 Page 13 of 14 acceptingastruethe allegationsin Datafteasury's complaint,the court cannotresolvethe foregoing factualconflicts in lhe affidavits and attached in documentation Datatreasury'sfavor. lnsufficient evidencehasbeenprcsentedto find that SVPCo's contactsv.ith the EastemDistrict of Texasare adequately continuousaad systematic supporta rcasonable to exerciseofgene&ljurisdictio{ over it. Therefore,eventhoughthe court finds it hasspecificjurisdiction over SVPCo,it cannotfind that it hasgeneraljudsdiction over S\?Co. Itr. FA]R PLAY AI\D SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE The exerciseof specificpelsonaljurisdiction over SVPCoin this district cornportsv/ith the justioe because: the burdenon SVPCo is small given requlrements fair play and substatrtial of (1) its dirctedactivities at theEastemDistrict ofTexas, SVPCo'savailmentofthe prote-ction ofTexas laws, and the reasonable foreseeablityof S\ryCo being haled into court ir the EastemDishict of Texasbasedon its national and afliliated activities in the district; (2) the district hasan interestin pursuing potential patent i4liingers in its judsdictionj (3) Datatreasuryhas ohosenthis forum to securerelief Aom SWCo's alleged infinging activities; (4) pursuing the instant action in this distdot alleviatesatrother fedemldistrict court fiom havirg to rcsolvethe dispute;and(5) exercising judsdiction in this district will help prese e the integrity ofthe patents,stem by ensudng personal the rights ofinventors to be free fiom infritrging activitiesby allegedinfringers. BureerKine.4Tl U.S.4t476-77. CONCLUSION Basdon the foregoirg aDalysis, court finds venuein this caseis proper ill the Eastem the Distdct ofTexas because court hasspecificjurisdictio! over SVPCo,which comportswith the the requirements offai! play and substantialjustice. However,the coud finds it iloes not havegeneral P a g e13of 14 Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC Document 211 Filed 06/23/2006 Page 14 of 14 jurisdiction over defendant contaals SVPCodueto a lack ofevidenceofcontinuous and systematic by SVPCoin the district. Therefore,the coult ORDERS that defendant Small Value PaymentCompany'sMotion to Dismiss for trnproperVenue (Dkt No. 2), filed Junl, 2004, is DENIED. "\ S I G N E D rhis \b dayofNovember2004. DAVID FOLSOM DISTRICTJTJDGE IJNITEDSTATES N,.SeN/\.r.----- P a g e14of 14

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?