in the united states district court for the district of delaware

More documents

Recommendations

Info

while the U.S. market appears to have been previously served only by non-party Star Pet, 19 (id. ), the evidence submitted supports the inference that AlphaPet has also been doing business in the U.S. market. (See id., ex. Eat 1) A September 2009 IRP press release stated that "AlphaPet['s] PET processing plant in Alabama will add to IRP's flexibility and reliability to serve customers throughout North America." (!d.) Moreover, "IRP and its subsidiaries have a marketing team in [the] USA ... which is focused on sales in [that] respective region[]." (ld., ex. Cat 32) IRP has also publicly highlighted its relationships with major national and international distributors of products that are likely to incorporate PET products, including "Pepsi, Coke, Nestle, Danone, [and] Schweppes." (I d.) In their briefs, Defendants do not substantively take issue with these assertions. Although Defendants have submitted declarations on behalf of both IRP and AlphaPet, neither of them directly addresses the key inquiry as to the first prong of the stream-of-commerce analysis-namely, whether there is evidence of an intent to serve the U.S. market with the products at issue in this litigation. These declarations merely attest that IRP has not "marketed or sold any products in Delaware," (D.I. 21 at~ 6), and that "AlphaPet Inc. has not sold or marketed any products in Delaware." (D.I. 22 at ~ 3) But the issue, for purposes of the stream -ofcommerce theory under the Delaware long-arm statute, is whether either IRP or AlphaPet intend to serve the U.S. and Delaware markets, and whether there are any Delaware sales of Defendants' PET products, or of other products that incorporate Defendants' PET products (even if those products themselves are not directly sold or marketed in Delaware). See Power Integrations, 547 19 Plaintiff has not argued that StarPet is IRP's agent, or that StarPet's activities in the U.S. might support the exercise of jurisdiction over IRP in Delaware. 34
F. Supp. 2d at 376 (granting jurisdictional discovery on stream-of-commerce theory where the defendants' accused power supply chips were incorporated into electronic devices such as cell phone chargers). Defendants' declarations do not address that question. (See D.I. 21, 22) As such, Plaintiff has offered factual allegations that suggest, with reasonable particularity, IRP's intent to serve the United States market at least through its alleged agent, AlphaPet. See Belden, 626 F. Supp. 2d at 459 (granting jurisdictional discovery regarding personal jurisdiction when plaintiffs factual allegations suggest "with reasonable particularity the possible existence of the requisite contacts between the parties and the forum state") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). While Plaintiff has offered some significant evidence relating to U.S. sales of PET products, Plaintiffhas not provided direct evidence that any of these products ended up in the Delaware market specifically, as required by the second prong of the stream-of-commerce analysis set forth in Power Integrations. 547 F. Supp. 2d at 372. However, the state of the record in this regard is analogous to that encountered in Belden Technologies, Inc. v. LS Corp., 626 F. Supp. 2d 448 (D. Del. 2009). In that case, the Court noted that "[ w ]hile it is possible that the accused products penetrated Delaware's market, plaintiff presents no evidence to substantiate this conclusion." I d. at 456. The Belden plaintiff pointed to defendants' business and distribution relationships, much as Plaintiff has here with regard to IRP's and AlphaPet's PET products. Finding that "[t]hrough exploring these relationships, plaintiff could unearth transactions, sales, or other contacts by defendants with Delaware," this Court ordered jurisdictional discovery to proceed in Belden. 626 F. Supp. 2d at 459. Similarly, in light of the evidence in the record, Plaintiff should have the opportunity to take discovery 35
Page 1 and 2: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Page 3 and 4: place of business in the Netherland
Page 5 and 6: jurisdictional discovery turns on t
Page 7 and 8: 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). Unless th
Page 9 and 10: elating to the agreement? Hadley v.
Page 11 and 12: clause of the TLA is valid. 7 2. IR
Page 13 and 14: only to the TLA in undertaking its
Page 15 and 16: IPR and IPW would all likewise be d
Page 17 and 18: contracting parties. There is no ev
Page 19 and 20: who expects to benefit from the suc
Page 21 and 22: power to govern its subsidiaries "s
Page 23 and 24: In Capital Group Cos. v. Armour, No
Page 25 and 26: that KSC was KSP's parent and that,
Page 27 and 28: Plaintiff has offered competent evi
Page 29 and 30: At oral argument, when asked what f
Page 31 and 32: theory may provide a basis to asser
Page 33: I d. at 372 (quoting Boone v. Oy Pa
Page 37 and 38: States." Oticon, Inc. v. Sebotek He
Page 39: IV. CONCLUSION The Court is mindful

in the united states district court for the district of delaware

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?