{"id":2290,"date":"2018-12-07T00:46:15","date_gmt":"2018-12-07T05:46:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2290"},"modified":"2018-12-10T10:40:05","modified_gmt":"2018-12-10T15:40:05","slug":"cd-letters-sufficient-to-establish-personal-jurisdiction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2290","title":{"rendered":"C&D Letters Sufficient to Establish Personal Jurisdiction"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. v. Plano Encryption Technologies LLC<\/a>,  [2016-2700] (December 7, 2018), the Federal Circuit reversed the dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, and remanded for further proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PET is a Limited Liability Company established in\u00a0the State of Texas, and is registered to do business\u00a0throughout Texas, with its registered address in Plano,\u00a0Texas, in the Eastern District of Texas.\u00a0\u00a0PET’s sole business is to enforce its\u00a0intellectual property.\u00a0 After receiving letters alleging infringement, Jack Henry and its customers brought the declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of Texas.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The district court granted PET\u2019s motion for dismissal,\u00a0stating that PET\u2019s actions do not subject it to personal\u00a0jurisdiction in the Northern District of Texas, noting that while such letters might be expected to support\u00a0an assertion of specific jurisdiction over the patentee\u00a0because the letters are purposefully directed\u00a0at the forum and the declaratory judgment\u00a0action arises out of the letters, the Federal Circuit\u00a0has held that, based on policy considerations\u00a0unique to the patent context, letters threatening\u00a0suit for patent infringement sent to the alleged infringer\u00a0by themselves do not suffice to create personal\u00a0jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit identified three relevant factors: (1) whether the defendant \u201cpurposefully directed\u201d its activities at residents of the forum; (2) whether the claim \u201carises out of or relates to\u201d the defendant\u2019s activities within the forum; and (3) whether assertion of personal jurisdiction is \u201creasonable and fair.\u201d  It said that the first two factors comprise the \u201cminimum contacts\u201d portion of the jurisdictional framework, and that it has held that the sending of a letter that forms the basis for the claim may be sufficient to establish minimum contacts, and PET’s counsel conceded as much at oral argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The analysis then turned to whether assertion of personal jurisdiction is \u201creasonable and fair.\u201d  The Federal Circuit noted that PET is subject to general jurisdiction in the state of Texas and is registered to do business throughout the state, and that it has not asserted that jurisdiction in the Northern District is inconvenient or unreasonable or unfair. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit said that the burden befalls PET, as the source of the minimum contacts, to make a \u201ccompelling case\u201d that the exercise of jurisdiction in the Northern District would be unreasonable and unfair.  However, PET did not argue that litigating in the Northern District would be unduly burdensome, or that any of the other factors supports a finding that jurisdiction would be unfair.  The Federal Circuit concluded that PET has met the minimum contacts requirement without offense to due process.

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. v. Plano Encryption Technologies LLC,  [2016-2700] (December 7, 2018), the Federal Circuit reversed the dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, and remanded for further proceedings. PET is a Limited Liability Company … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2290","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-jurisdiction"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2290","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2290"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2290\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2319,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2290\/revisions\/2319"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2290"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2290"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2290"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}