Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. v. Plano Encryption Technologies, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 15-777–LPS-CJB, April 25, 2016.
Burke, M. J. Report and recommendation recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part. Briefing was completed on November 27, 2015 and oral argument took place on February 8, 2016.
The disputed technology relates to online and mobile banking products. Defendants allege lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court finds that plaintiff has not made a prima facie case showing as to personal jurisdiction over defendant PET and focuses on whether to allow jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff has not produced any competent evidence that TET and defendant Koba are indistinct legal entities and has made a very weak showing as to the applicability of the alter ego theory. Granting jurisdiction would amount to a fishing expedition and speculation is an insufficient basis to allow discovery on jurisdiction. With respect to the remaining defendant Koba, there is no basis to find that a case or controversy exists. The assignee of the patents-in-suit is PET, not Koba, and PET is the entity that has been attempting to license and enforce those patents. The court does not reach the failure to state a claim issue.