Polar Electro Oy v Suunto Oy, et al, C.A. No. 11-1100-GMS, May 12, 2015
Sleet, J. Finnish defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted.
Defendant is a Finnish company with its principal place of business in Finland. It contracts with codefendant Delaware corporation to distribute its products in the United States. Defendant does not conduct direct sales in Delaware, the codefendant does. Title to the accused products passes outside the United States. The court finds no evidence of intent to sell in Delaware in particular, notwithstanding a commercially interactive website. Defendant makes no sales through this website. The court is persuaded there is dual jurisdiction, although noting conflicting views on dual jurisdiction. However, due process considerations prevent the court from exercising jurisdiction since targeting the national market is not enough to impute jurisdiction to all the States. There is furthermore no jurisdiction under the federal long-arm statute, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). That statute provides for jurisdiction over a foreign defendant if it is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction. Here, defendant has pointed to a state where jurisdiction would be proper. Thus, 4(k)(2) is inapplicable. The court takes issue with Delaware’s approach to dual jurisdiction particularly in light of McIntyre.