Crypton Future Media, Inc. v. Hologram USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 14-1247 – RGA , September 8, 2015.
Andrews, J. Defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are granted. Defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6) are denied as moot. A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is dismissed as moot. Oral argument took place on March 10, 2015.
In this declaratory judgment action, the dispute relates to rear projection technology. Defendant argues that a cease-and-desist letter did not create a substantial controversy, and in any event it has provided assurances that it does not consider the plaintiff’s technology to be infringing. The court finds that there was initially a case and controversy based on the cease and desist letter, but because the technology is different for each performance using the technology, there is too speculative a basis to maintain jurisdiction addressing future infringement.