Gro Master, Inc. v. Farmweld, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. C 12–4096–MWB.,C 12–4096–MWB. |
| Citation | 920 F.Supp.2d 974 |
| Parties | GRO MASTER, INC., a Kentucky corporation, Plaintiff, v. FARMWELD, INC., an Illinois corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Dennis L. Thomte, Thomte Patent Law Office, LLC, Omaha, NE, Timothy J. Zarley, Zarley Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.
David Stubstad, Michael F. Coyle, Patrick S. Cooper, Robert H. Futhey, Fraser Stryker PC LLO, Omaha, NE, for Defendant.
An out-of-state corporation has brought this action for infringement of its patent for an “animal feeder with adjustment of a feed discharge opening” against another out-of-state corporation that allegedly manufactures and sells an infringing animal feeder. The defendant has moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue or, in the alternative, for transfer of the action to an appropriate venue. The plaintiff patentholder hangs its contention that personal jurisdiction and venue are proper in this district on the defendant's attendance as an exhibitor at the World Pork Expo in Des Moines, Iowa, in June 2012, its advertisement of its animal feeder in a national magazine, and its sale of a single animal feeder to a customer in Iowa. This case gives off a whiff of forum shopping nearly as potent as the odor emanating from a hog confinement facility.
In its Complaint (docket no. 2), plaintiff Gro Master, Inc., alleges that it is a Kentuckycorporation with its principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska. Gro Master alleges that it is the owner of United States Patent No. 6,923,142 (the '142 patent), issued August 2, 2005, entitled “ANIMAL FEEDER WITH ADJUSTMENT OF A FEED DISCHARGE OPENING.” Gro Master also alleges that defendant Farmweld, Inc., is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Teutopolis, Illinois; that Farmweld is selling and offering for sale animal feeders covered by the '142 patent in Iowa and this judicial district and throughout the United States, without an express or implied license; and that, by doing so, Farmweld is willfully infringing the ' 142 patent.
In a Declaration (docket no. 19–2), filed in support of Farmweld's Motion To Dismiss Or, Alternatively, Motion To Transfer Venue (docket no. 19), Francis A. Brummer, the chief executive officer of Farmweld, admits that Farmweld is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Teutopolis, Illinois. He avers that Farmweld is registered to do business in Illinois, but not Iowa; that Farmweld does not maintain any offices, employees, or telephone listings in Iowa; that all of Farmweld's employees are located in Teutopolis, with the exception of a single employee located in Minnesota; that Farmweld does not pay taxes or maintain any bank accounts in Iowa; that Farmweld does not advertise in the yellow pages in Iowa; and that Farmweld does not own any real or personal property in Iowa.
Mr. Brummer also avers that the animal feeder that is presumably the subject of Gro Master's Complaint was developed in Teutopolis, Illinois, not in Iowa, and that all marketing and sales decisions related to the product were made at its offices in Teutopolis. He avers, further, that Farmweld began selling the animal feeder that is presumably the subject of Gro Master's Complaint in January 2012, that it has received orders for 632 such feeders, but that it has sold only one such animal feeder to a customer in Iowa. He also avers that it is his “understanding” that the Iowa customer has a “relationship” with Gro Master,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indag GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG v. IMA S.P.A.
...jurisdiction. Indeed, at least one district court has distinguished Synthes on this very basis. See e.g., Gro Master, Inc. v. Farmweld, Inc. , 920 F.Supp.2d 974, 982 (N.D.Iowa.2013) (distinguishing Synthes for its multiple trade show contacts with the United States and finding a single trad......
-
Broadway Nat'l Bank v. Plano Encryption Techs., LLC
...§ 1391. See VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co. , 917 F.2d 1574, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1990) ; see also Gro Master, Inc. v. Farmweld, Inc. , 920 F.Supp.2d 974, 988–99 (N.D.Iowa 2013) ; United Sonics, Inc. v. Shock , 661 F.Supp. 681, 682 (W.D.Tex.1986). Pursuant to § 1391(b), venue is prop......
-
Pinney v. Aegon Cos. Pension Plan
...analysis distinctions between 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) transfers and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) transfers); see also Gro Master, Inc. v. Farmweld, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 2d 974, 991 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (noting that "[v]arious federal appellate courts have recognized that the effect of a transfer pursuant to [......
-
Columbia Ins. Co. v. Integrated Stealth Tech. Inc.
...of "the defendant's alleged manufacturing, using, or selling of the claimed invention"). Defendant cites Gro Master, Inc. v. Farmweld, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 2d 974, 982-83 (N.D. Iowa 2013), for the proposition that a single sale of an allegedly infringing product is insufficient to conferspeci......