Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01148/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01148-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 All parties have consented to my jurisdiction for all

proceedings, including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(c). 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GOODMAN BALL, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CLEAR WATER USA, INC., et

al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-1148 BZ

ORDER GRANTING

JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

Before me is defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s

complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue

or, in the alternative, to transfer venue.1 Plaintiff’s

complaint accuses Clear Water USA, Inc., and Denouement

Strategies, Inc., of infringing on its patented water

purification technology in violation federal patent law. See

Complaint ¶ 1. Defendants argue that this Court does not have

personal jurisdiction over them and that plaintiff’s complaint

must therefore be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(2). They also attack plaintiff’s choice of

venue and, alternatively, seek transfer to the Middle District

Case 3:07-cv-01148-BZ Document 35 Filed 06/21/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 Plaintiff filed a request for leave to file a surreply to defendants’ reply. Docket No. 31. Good cause

appearing, that request is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s sur-reply 

[Docket No. 31-2] is deemed filed.

3 With their reply, defendants objected to certain

evidence proffered by plaintiff [Docket No. 30], including

relevance objections to copies of a default judgment and notice

of recording foreign judgment relating to a California state

suit between Clear Water and a California resident corporation. 

This evidence goes to Clear Water’s connections to California;

I therefore OVERRULE these objections. The remaining three

objections dealt with evidence I did not rely on to reach this

determination. I will therefore DEFER ruling on these

objections until after discovery and further briefing. 

2

Court in Florida. In its opposition, plaintiff requested

leave to take jurisdictional discovery in the event I cannot

resolve the matter on this record. 

Having considered the parties’ papers2

 and the

declarations and other admissible evidence provided therewith,

I conclude that the factual record is inadequate to permit a

proper resolution of the motion and that plaintiff should be

allowed to take limited jurisdictional discovery.3

Jurisdictional discovery “is appropriate where the

existing record is ‘inadequate’ to support personal

jurisdiction and ‘a party demonstrates that it can supplement

its jurisdictional allegations through discovery.’” Trintec

Industries, Inc. v. Pedre Promotional Products, Inc., 395 F.3d

1275, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing GTE New Media Servs., Inc.

v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343, 1351-52 (D.C. Cir. 2000));

see also Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Bell

& Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Contrary to defendants’ assertion, plaintiff’s argument as to

the presence of personal jurisdiction is neither attenuated

Case 3:07-cv-01148-BZ Document 35 Filed 06/21/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

nor based on bare allegations. The evidence plaintiff has

provided combined with Mr. Holmich’s inconsistent statement,

is sufficient to allow plaintiff to conduct limited discovery

in support of its jurisdictional allegations. The court

suggests plaintiff focus its discovery on the following areas:

1. Whether the water purification systems found in

California originated with defendants.

2. The relationship between defendants, Acqua America,

Inc., and Mach II Aviation, Inc.;

3. Defendants’ roles in purchasing, selling, shipping,

maintaining, or servicing the allegedly infringing

purification systems found by plaintiff in Port Hueneme,

California.

4. The extent to which defendants have conducted

business in California via their web sites;

For the reasons discussed, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

plaintiff’s request to take jurisdictional discovery is

GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file a supplemental opposition

limited to any newly discovered evidence on the jurisdictional

issue by August 31, 2007. Defendants shall file a reply by

September 10, 2007. The motion will be heard on September 19,

2007 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, Federal

Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 

94102. The hearing scheduled for July 11, 2007 is VACATED.

Dated: June 21, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\Goodman Ball\ORDER.GRANT.JURSID.DISC.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-01148-BZ Document 35 Filed 06/21/07 Page 3 of 3