United States District Court, D. Colorado
R. BROOKE JACKSON, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery [ECF No. 20]. For the following reasons, the plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part.
On May 27, 2014 Magpul Industries, Corp. ("Magpul") filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory judgment of (1) non-infringement and (2) invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8, 733, 601 ("the 601 Patent") against Blue Force Gear, Inc. ("BFG"). The 601 Patent protects the design of a rifle sling marketed as the Blue Force Gear Vickers Combat Application Sling. For purposes of this motion it is important to note that Vickers refers to Larry Vickers, a host of tactical firearms-related television shows on the Sportsman Channel.
BFG has moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that there is no subject matter jurisdiction over the action and no personal jurisdiction over it. [ECF No. 16]. Magpul opposes the motion to dismiss and now seeks leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
Magpul requests the following discovery:
1. Documents establishing the relationship between Larry Vickers and BFG.
2. Documents sufficient to show monetary payments, or other non-cash compensation, provided by BFG to Mr. Vickers.
3. Documents that establish BFG's control over, or coordination with, Mr. Vickers.
4. License agreements, settlement agreements, covenants not to sue, and demand letters relating to the 601 Patent.
5. Documents relating to the licensing or threat of enforcement of any rights under the 601 Patent.
6. Communications between BFG and the Defense Logistics Agency that refer or relate to the 601 Patent or its patent application, Magpul, or Colorado.
7. BFG's protest bids filed with the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2014.
See [ECF No. 20 at 7]. These seven requests fall into two broad categories of information: (i) the relationship between Larry Vickers and BFG (Nos. 1-3) and (ii) BFG's communications to others relating to the 601 Patent (Nos. 4-7). The former category concerns the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ...