United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT WILLOWOOD LIMITED'S
MOTION TO DISMISS
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This
matter is before the Court on Defendant Willowood
Limited's Motion to Dismiss, which asserts that the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(2). (Doc. # 60.) For the following reasons,
the Court concludes that it does not have personal
jurisdiction over Willowood Limited and accordingly grants
the motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
On
February 1, 2018, Plaintiff BASF (“BASF”) filed a
lawsuit against Defendants Willowood, LLC
(“W-LLC”), Willowood USA, LLC
(“W-USA”), Greenfields Marketing, Limited
(“Greenfields”), RightLine, LLC
(“RightLine”), and Willowood Limited
(“W-Limited”) for patent infringement pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (Doc. ## 1, 50.) BASF avers all
Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the
federal district of Colorado. (Id.) W-Limited by
contrast, argues that it is not subject to either general or
specific jurisdiction in Colorado. (Doc. # 60.) The following
facts are drawn from the Complaint and are taken as true for
the purposes of the instant motion.
BASF is
incorporated in Delaware, and its principal place of business
is in Florham Park, New Jersey. (Doc. # 50 at ¶ 1.) BASF
researches, develops, tests, and sells different products and
technologies in the agrochemical field. (Id. at
¶ 41.) BASF researched and developed pyraclostrobin, a
“break-through fungicidal chemical for use (1) in
disease control and plant health in a variety of plants, (2)
as a seed treatment for disease control and plant health in a
variety of crops, and (3) as a drench for soil borne disease
control and improved plant health in production
ornamentals.” (Id. at ¶ 42.) BASF
obtained two patents[1] relating to the process of manufacturing
the pyraclostrobin chemical compound. (Id. at
¶¶ 43, 44, 48.) As a result, BASF has manufactured,
marketed, and sold pyraclostrobin end-use products under
various different brands. (Id. at ¶ 42.)
Accordingly, BASF received several registrations for
pyraclostrobin from both the Environmental Protection Agency
and state authorities as early as September 30, 2002.
(Id. at ¶¶ 53-56.)
Defendant
W-Limited is a limited liability company that is incorporated
and has its principal place of business in Hong Kong.
(Id. at ¶ 4.) Defendant W-USA, a limited
liability company incorporated in Oregon with its principal
place of business in Broomfield, Colorado, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of W-Limited. (Id. at ¶¶ 1 and
19.) Defendants W-LLC and RightLine are both wholly owned
subsidiaries of W-USA.[2] (Doc. # 50 at ¶¶ 17-18.)
Defendants W-USA, W-LLC, and RightLine sought and received
approval from the Colorado Department of Agriculture to sell
products allegedly obtained in violation of the ‘392
and ‘451 patents.[3] (Id. at ¶ 22.)
BASF
filed an amended complaint on July 30, 2018. (Doc. # 50.)
W-Limited subsequently filed the instant Motion to Dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction on August 15, 2018. (Doc. #
60.) Plaintiff filed a response on September 5, 2018 (Doc. #
65) and W-Limited filed a reply on September 19, 2018 (Doc. #
70).
II.
LAW
To
establish personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant,
a plaintiff must show both that jurisdiction is proper under
the forum state's long-arm statute and that the exercise
of personal jurisdiction over the defendant comports with the
Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. See
Equifax Servs., Inc. v. Hitz, 905 F.2d 1355, 1357 (10th
Cir. 1990). Colorado's long-arm statute permits the Court
to exercise personal jurisdiction to the full extent of the
Due Process Clause, and therefore, the analysis collapses
into a single due process inquiry. See Colo. Rev.
Stat. §§ 13-1-124(1)(a)-(b); Dart Int'l,
Inc. v. Interactive Target Sys., Inc., 877 F.Supp. 541,
543 (D. Colo. 1995) (citing Safari Outfitters, Inc. v.
Superior Court, 448 P.2d 783 (1968)); SGI Air
Holdings II LLC. v. Novartis Int'l, AG, 192
F.Supp.2d 1195, 1197-98 (D. Colo. 2002).
“The
Due Process Clause protects a [defendant's] liberty
interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a
forum with which [it] has established no meaningful
‘contacts, ties, or relations.'” Burger
King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 471-72 (1985)
(quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. State of Washington,
326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945)). The cornerstone of the personal
jurisdiction inquiry is whether “the defendant's
conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he
should reasonably anticipate being haled into court
there.” Trierweilver v. Croxton & Trench
Holding Corp., 90 F.3d 1523, 1532 (10th Cir. 1996)
(quoting WorldWide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S.
286, 295 (1980)). To comport with due process limitations, a
court may exercise personal jurisdiction only over defendants
that have “certain minimum contacts [with the
jurisdiction] . . . .” Int'l Shoe, 326
U.S. at 316 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S.
457, 463 (1940)).
When
there are multiple defendants, as is the case here,
“minimum contacts must be found as to each defendant
over whom the court exercises jurisdiction.”
Home-Stake Prod. Co. v. Talon Petroleum, C.A., 907
F.2d 1012, 1020 (10th Cir. 1990). The minimum contacts
standard may be satisfied in either of two ways-general or
specific jurisdiction. See Kuenzle v. HTM Sport-Und
Freizeitgerate AG, 102 F.3d 453, 455 (10th Cir. 1996). A
court's duty is the same in either case: it must
guarantee that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not
offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.” World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at
292 (1980) (quoting Int'l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316)
(internal quotation omitted).
A court
may assert general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation to
hear any and all claims against it when its affiliations with
the state are so “continuous and systematic” such
that it is essentially at home in the forum state.
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 126 (2014)
(quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown,
564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)). “For an individual, the
paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is
the individual's domicile; for a corporation, it is an
equivalent place.” Daimler, 571 U.S. at 137;
see also Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919. “The
‘paradigm' forum[] in which a corporate defendant
is ‘at home' . . . [is] the corporation's place
of incorporation and its principal place of business.”
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrell, 137 S.Ct. 1549, 1558 (2017)
(internal citations omitted).
Specific
jurisdiction, on the other hand, depends on an
“affiliation between the forum and the underlying
controversy.” Id. For a court to assert
specific jurisdiction, the out-of-state defendant must have
(1) purposefully directed its activities at residents of the
forum, and (2) the litigation must result from alleged
injuries that “arise out of or relate to” those
activities. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472. The
purposeful direction requirement “ensures that
defendants will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a
result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts, . . .
or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third
person.” Id. at 475. To determine whether a
defendant in a tort- based lawsuit “purposefully
directed its activities at the forum state, ” the Court
looks for three elements: (1) an intentional act that was (2)
aimed expressly at the forum state with (3) the knowledge
that the brunt of the injury would be felt in the forum
state. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-90 (1984).
III.
STAN ...