Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited, et al., C.A. No. 16-634 – SLR-SRF, August 17, 2016.
Fallon, M. J. Report and recommendation recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction be denied.
Defendants seek dismissal of the Chinese and Hong Kong defendants. The remaining defendant is a Delaware corporation. Any factual discrepancies between the declarations and evidence supplied by plaintiff are resolved in favor of plaintiff. The evidence suggests that both moving defendants made direct sales of the accused products to Delaware through their websites, satisfying subsection (c)(3) od the Delaware long-arm stature. The Hong Kong defendant’s intent to distribute products throughout the US is sufficient to establish intent to serve the Delaware market specifically. The Hong Kong defendant is not subject to general jurisdiction based on a representation in a previous litigation in another jurisdiction regarding its corporate status. Exercising jurisdiction comports with due process because defendant placed the accused products in the stream of commerce knowing the likely destination of the products and should have reasonably anticipated being brought into court in Delaware.