Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01960/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01960-0/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

OEM Group Incorporated, an Arizona 

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SEMSYSCO Incorporated, a Montana 

corporation, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV13-1960 PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant SEMSYSCO, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal 

jurisdiction. Doc. 18. The motion is fully briefed. Docs. 25, 29. The Court discussed 

the motion with the parties at the Case Management Conference held on 

February 13, 2014. 

 This is a patent infringement case. SEMSYSCO’s motion asserts that it is a 

holding corporation located in Montana and does not make, use, sell, offer to sell, or 

import any products or services, including those alleged to be infringing of Plaintiff’s 

patents. In response, Plaintiff OEM Group, Inc. does not dispute this assertion. OEM 

presents no evidence that SEMSYSCO has taken any action that violated its patents or 

affected interests within the State of Arizona. Instead, OEM argues that SEMSYSCO 

may be an alter-ego of Co-defendant SEMSYSCO Austria, or that SEMSYSCO may be 

liable for inducing infringement. The Court finds neither argument persuasive. 

 OEM presents no factual allegations in its complaint, and no factual assertions in 

its response, to show that SEMSYSCO is the alter-ego of SEMSYSCO Austria. Indeed, 

Case 2:13-cv-01960-DGC Document 34 Filed 02/14/14 Page 1 of 3
‐ 2 ‐ 

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 

the words “alter-ego” do not even appear in OEM’s complaint. See Doc. 1. OEM’s 

response to the motion to dismiss does contain factual assertions and supporting 

documentation concerning a relationship between SEMSYSCO Austria and an entity 

known as The Thompson Group, but The Thompson Group is separate from 

SEMSYSCO and is not a party to this case. Doc. 25 at 2-4. OEM candidly states that “it 

is unknown” whether SEMSYSCO is the alter-ego of SEMSYSCO Austria. Doc. 25 at 

10. 

 To defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on the basis of 

pleadings and affidavits, a plaintiff must make only a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. 

Nuance Communications, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 

2010). But OEM has not made even a prima facie showing. Its complaint does not set 

forth any facts to show that SEMSYSCO is the alter-ego of SEMSYSCO Austria, and its 

response fails to provide such facts. 

 OEM has also failed to make a prima facie showing that SEMSYSCO is subject to 

personal jurisdiction on the basis of having induced infringement. OEM argues that 

SEMSYSCO’s motion “does not rule out allegations that [SEMSYSCO] induced 

infringement,” and cites to paragraphs 20, 35, 50, and 65 of its complaint. Doc. 25 at 9. 

These paragraphs in the complaint, however, do not allege any facts upon which it could 

be asserted that SEMSYSCO is liable for inducing infringement. To the extent OEM is 

suggesting that SEMSYSCO Austria induced infringement by selling products to others, 

SEMSYSCO could be liable for that conduct only if it were the alter-ego of SEMSYSCO 

Austria, an assertion that has not been supported. To the extent OEM suggests that 

SEMSYSCO itself has undertaken actions that constitute inducement of infringement, it 

has pointed to no factual allegations and no supporting evidence to back up such a claim. 

Thus, OEM has failed to establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction over SEMSYSCO 

based on inducement of infringement. 

 OEM asks the Court to permit jurisdictional discovery. The Federal Circuit has 

instructed that a request for jurisdictional discovery is to be decided on the basis of Ninth 

Case 2:13-cv-01960-DGC Document 34 Filed 02/14/14 Page 2 of 3
‐ 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 

Circuit law, not Federal Circuit law. See Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd.,

566 F.3d 1012, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Ninth Circuit has held that where “a 

plaintiff’s claim of personal jurisdiction appears to be both attenuated and based on their 

allegations in the face of specific denials made by defendants, the Court need not permit 

even limited discovery[.]” Terracom v. Valley Nat’l Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 562 (9th Cir. 

1995). As discussed above, Plaintiff has not even made bare allegations that 

SEMSYSCO is an alter-ego of SEMSYSCO Austria, and no factual allegations that 

SEMSYSCO engaged in inducement of infringement. Nor has OEM provided factual 

support for such assertions in its response to the motion to dismiss. Given the utter lack 

of supporting facts for the suggestion that SEMSYSCO is subject to personal jurisdiction 

in Arizona, the Court will dismiss the claim against SEMSYSCO and deny OEM’s 

request for jurisdictional discovery under Terracom. 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant SEMSYSCO, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack 

of personal jurisdiction (Doc. 18) is granted. In light of this ruling, the Court will not 

enter a Case Management Order until SEMSYSCO Austria has been served and appears 

in this case. 

 Dated this 14th day of February, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-01960-DGC Document 34 Filed 02/14/14 Page 3 of 3