Ingeniador, LLC v. Interwoven

• Citation: 874 F.Supp.2d 56
• Decision Date: 15 May 2012
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 11–1840(GAG).
• Parties: INGENIADOR, LLC, Plaintiff, v. INTERWOVEN, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico

874 F.Supp.2d 56

INGENIADOR, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.INTERWOVEN, Defendant.

Civ. No. 11–1840(GAG).

United States District Court,

D. Puerto Rico.

May 15, 2012.

Katherine Gonzalez–Valentin, Ferraiuoli LLC, Pedro Santiago–Rivera, Rafael Escalera–Rodriguez, Reichard & Escalera, Cristina Arenas–Solis, Eugenio J. Torres–Oyola, Ferraiuoli–Torres, Marchand & Rovira PSC, San Juan, PR, Maristella Collazo–Soto, Ferraiuoli LLC, Hato Rey, PR, for Plaintiff.

OPINION AND ORDER

GUSTAVO A. GELPI, District Judge.

Ingeniador, LLC (“Plaintiff”) brings this complaint against Alfresco Software, Inc. (“Alfresco”), Interwoven, Inc. (“Interwoven”), Blackboard, Inc. (“Blackboard”), Bridgeline Digital, Inc. (“Bridgeline”), EMC Corp. (“EMC”), Hewlett–Packard Co. (“HP”), Informatica Corp. (“Informatica”), Compulink Management Center, Inc. (“Compulink”), Lexmark International, Inc. (“Lexmark”), Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”), Nuxeo Corp. (“Nuxeo”), Objective Corp. USA, Inc. (“Objective”), Oracle Corp. (“Oracle”), SAP America, Inc. (“SAP”), SDL Tridion, Inc. (“Tridion”), and SpringCM, Inc. (“SpringCM”) (collectively “Defendants”), alleging patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from infringing and profiting from its patent, as well as to recover damages, attorney's fees and costs. ( See Docket No. 1 ¶ 1.) The complaint was filed in federal court based on this court's federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and its patent law jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Prior to this opinion and order, the court granted the dismissal of Objective (Docket No. 161), SAP (Docket No. 178), Oracle (Docket No. 224), Microsoft (Docket No. 232), SpringCM (Docket No. 240), HP (Docket No. 251) and Interwoven (Docket No. 253). Default judgment was entered against Bridgeline (Docket No. 235). The remaining parties filed various motions to dismiss.

Presently before the court are numerous motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and improper joinder, as well as motions to transfer the case to other jurisdictions.

I. Background and Procedural History

In its complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants infringed on its patented publishing system for the internet. ( See Docket No. 1 ¶ 23.) The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S. Patent No. 6,990,629 (the “629 Patent”) to Schlumberger Technology Corporation. Schlumberger Technology Corporation later assigned the 629 Patent to Plaintiff. ( See id. ¶ 23.) Plaintiff asserts each defendant sells products that either directly or indirectly infringe upon the 629 Patent, or contribute to a third party's infringement of the 629 Patent. ( See Docket No. 1 ¶¶ 23–39.) As Defendants assert differing reasons for dismissal, the facts particular to each defendant will be discussed in the pertinent section.

A. Personal Jurisdiction

Blackboard (Docket No. 106), Interwoven (Docket No. 110), SpringCM (Docket No. 114), Compulink (Docket No. 116) and Tridion (Docket No. 139) each filed a motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction within the forum of Puerto Rico. Ingeniador opposed these motions (Docket No. 167). Replies were filed by Blackboard (Docket No. 185), Interwoven (Docket No. 187), Compulink (Docket No. 188), Tridion (Docket No. 190) and SpringCM (Docket No. 191). Ingeniador filed a sur-reply to all replies except that of Tridion's (Docket No. 215). For the reasons stated below the court GRANTS these motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

B. Failure to State a Claim

Microsoft, HP, EMC, Nuxeo, Informatica, Oracle, SAP, and Lexmark filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Docket No. 96). That motion was joined by Interwoven (Docket No. 122) and SpringCM (Docket No. 114). Compulink (Docket No. 111), Tridion (Docket No. 139), and Alfresco (Docket No. 153) filed separate motions to dismiss incorporating similar arguments. These motions were opposed by Plaintiff (Docket No. 165). Defendants Nuxeo, Informatica, Oracle, HP, Lexmark, SAP, Microsoft and EMC replied (Docket No. 182) and Interwoven joined (Docket No. 200). Compulink and Tridion filed reply briefs (Docket Nos. 186 & 190 respectfully). Plaintiff filed a sur-reply (Docket No. 213). The court previously ruled it did not have personal jurisdiction over Interwoven, Compulink, and Tridion. Accordingly, these motion (Docket Nos. 122, 111, & 139, respectively) are found to be MOOT. The court GRANTS the motions to dismiss filed by Microsoft, HP, EMC, Nuxeo, Informatica, Oracle, SAP, Lexmark, and Alfresco (Docket No. 96).

C. Improper Joinder

EMC filed a motion to dismiss for improper joinder under Rule 20 (Docket No. 99). The motion was joined by SpringCM (Docket No. 114) and partially joined by Lexmark (Docket No. 121), Microsoft (Docket No. 107), HP (Docket No. 107), Informatica (Docket No. 132) and SAP (Docket No. 150). Blackboard (Docket No. 106), Compulink (Docket No. 117), Oracle(Docket No. 137) and Tridion (Docket No. 139) also filed motions to dismiss for improper joinder. Ingeniador filed an opposition to all such motions (Docket No. 168). Replies were filed by EMC (Docket No. 184), SpringCM (Docket No. 191), and Compulink (Docket No. 194). Ingeniador filed a sur-reply (Docket No. 212). However, Defendants have been dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction or for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim. Accordingly, the court finds all motions for improper joinder to be MOOT.

D. Transfer of Venue

EMC (Docket No. 99), SpringCM (Docket No. 114) and Compulink (Docket No. 117) filed motions to transfer to the Northern District of California, the Northern District of Illinois and the Central District of California, respectively. Plaintiff opposed all these motions (Docket No. 166). Each defendant filed a reply brief: EMC (Docket No. 183), SpringCM (Docket No. 191), and Compulink (Docket Nos. 194 & 195). Plaintiff filed a sur-reply (Docket No. 211). For the reasons previously discussed, the court finds the motions to transfer (Docket Nos. 99, 114 & 117) to be MOOT.

II. Personal Jurisdiction

A. Legal Standard

“The Due Process Clause protects an individual's liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or relations.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471–72, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (citing Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945)) (internal quotations marks omitted). A court is without authority to adjudicate a case when the court does not have personal jurisdiction over the parties. See Marcinkowska v. IMG Worldwide, Inc., 342 Fed.Appx. 632, 635 (Fed.Cir.2009). Personal jurisdiction comes in two forms: general and specific. See Nuance Commc'ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1230 (Fed.Cir.2010). When dealing with patent infringement cases, it is the law of the Federal Circuit which controls, rather than the law of the regional Circuit Court. See id. (citing Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541, 1543 (Fed.Cir.1995)).

The plaintiff has the burden of proving the court has jurisdiction over the defendants. See also Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin & Parr, 574 F.3d 1403, 1410 (Fed.Cir.2009). When, as in this case, the parties have not conducted jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiff must only make a prima facie showing that the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction. See Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Indus., Inc., 326 F.3d 1194, 1201 (Fed.Cir.2003). “Personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant is appropriate if the relevant state's long-arm statute permits the assertion of jurisdiction without violating federal due process.” 3D Sys., Inc. v. Aarotech Labs., Inc., 160 F.3d 1373, 1376–77 (Fed.Cir.1998). A federal court is required to first analyze whether the state's long-arm statute would require the defendant to appear in a state court. See Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc., 638 F.3d 785, 788–89 (Fed.Cir.2011). If the forum state has jurisdiction over the defendant, then the court must then ensure that holding jurisdiction over the defendant in the forum state does not offend constitutional due process. See id. Due process requires the court to hold it does not have jurisdiction if doing so offends the “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. 154.

In the present case, the court need only determine whether due process would permit the court to assert jurisdiction over each defendant because Puerto Rico's long-arm statute extends to the limits of constitutional bounds. See Carreras v. PMG Collins, LLC, 660 F.3d 549, 552 (1st Cir.2011). Therefore, the court focuses its analysis on whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case is constitutionally permissible.

The standard for general in personam jurisdiction is considerably more stringent than the standard for specific in personam jurisdiction. See Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1018 (Fed.Cir.2009). In order to have general jurisdiction over a defendant, the court must find the defendant to have ‘continuous and systematic’ activities in the forum state. See Marcinkowska, 342 Fed.Appx. at 635 (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415–16, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984)). The existence of property, offices, or businesses within the forum state supports a finding of general jurisdiction over a corporation. See Marcinkowska, 342 Fed.Appx. at 635. In Helicopteros, the Supreme Court found no general jurisdiction in Texas over a foreign company that sent a representative to Houston, and had purchased helicopters, spare parts, and accessories from Texas. See Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 411, 104 S.Ct. 1868. The company had sent representatives to Texas to train as pilots, management and maintenance personal to receive training, and monies transferred from a Houston bank account. See id. However,...