Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01183/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01183-0/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 

Lance L. Renfrow, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

BDP Innovative Chemicals Company, 

Defendant.

No. CV-14-01183-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant BDP Innovative Chemicals Company’s 

(“BDP’s”) Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike portions of BDP’s Reply. 

(Docs. 16, 26.) For the following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss is denied and the 

Motion to Strike is granted. 

BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiffs claim that BDP infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,855,679 (‘679), a patent for a 

detergent composition issued to Plaintiff Lance Renfrow in 2005. Specific to the current 

Motion, Plaintiffs claim that BDP manufactures several products, including draft beer 

line cleaners, that embody the composition patented by ‘679. Since 2002, BDP has sold 

the draft beer line cleaners throughout the United States, including` in Arizona, by way of 

a third-party distributor, Micro Matic, Inc. (“Micro Matic”). Micro Matic’s website 

contains information indicating that it sells the draft beer cleaners to wholesale beer 

distributors, including eighteen distributors in thirty-two locations in Arizona. 

 BDP claims that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it and requests 

dismissal of the case. (Doc. 16.) In the alternative, BDP asserts that Arizona is an 

Case 2:14-cv-01183-GMS Document 29 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 8
- 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 

improper venue and requests either dismissal on this ground or a transfer of this case to 

the United States District Court for the Central District of Florida. (Id.) Plaintiffs have 

filed a Motion to Strike portions of BDP’s Reply because it contains information 

irrelevant to the Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 26.) 

DISCUSSION 

I. Motion to Strike 

Under Local Rule 7.2(m)(1), a party may move to strike portions of a motion if 

they are “prohibited or not authorized by a statute, rule, or court order.” See also Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(f) (“The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any 

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”). In its Reply, BDP addresses 

such issues as Plaintiffs’ motives for bringing this suit and the ownership interests in ‘679 

held by Plaintiffs and their attorneys. These issues are unrelated to the question of 

whether the Court possesses personal jurisdiction over BDP. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike 

is, therefore, granted and the Court will disregard these portions of the Reply. 

II. Motion to Dismiss 

A. Personal Jurisdiction 

 1. Legal Standard 

 Personal jurisdiction in patent cases is decided under Federal Circuit law, rather 

than that of the regional circuit in which the case arose. Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 

1541, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1995). A court may assert general jurisdiction over a defendant 

whose contacts with the forum state are “continuous and systematic,” regardless of 

whether those contacts form the basis of the complaint. Helicopteros Nacionales de 

Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415 (1984). A court lacking general jurisdiction 

may nevertheless exercise personal jurisdiction over a party if it has “specific 

jurisdiction” over a party that “deliberately has engaged in significant activities within a 

state or has created continuing obligations between himself and residents of the forum.” 

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475–76 (1985) (internal quotations 

omitted). 

Case 2:14-cv-01183-GMS Document 29 Filed 12/15/14 Page 2 of 8
- 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 

 Under Federal Circuit law, a district court can exercise specific jurisdiction over a 

party that would be subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the 

forum state. Red Wing Shoe Co., Inc. v. Hockerson–Halberstadt, 148 F.3d 1355, 1358 

(Fed. Cir. 1998). The Arizona long-arm statute permits state courts to exercise personal 

jurisdiction “to the maximum extent permitted by this state and the Constitution of the 

United States.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2. This Court, therefore, has personal jurisdiction over 

Defendants if the maintenance of this suit “does not offend [the] traditional notions of fair 

play and substantial justice” embodied in the Due Process Clause. International Shoe Co. 

v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 

(1940)). Although the burden is on the plaintiff to show that jurisdiction is proper, in the 

absence of an evidentiary hearing pleadings are construed in the plaintiff’s favor and the 

plaintiff “need only to make a prima facie showing that defendants are subject to personal 

jurisdiction.” Electronics for Imaging Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 

2003). 

 In determining whether exercising specific jurisdiction over an out-of-state 

defendant comports with due process in a patent case, a court evaluates whether “(1) the 

defendant purposefully directed its activities at residents of the forum state, (2) the claim 

arises out of or relates to the defendant’s activities in the forum state, and (3) assertion of 

personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair.” Electronics for Imaging, 340 F.3d at 1350. 

Directly shipping a product to a state qualifies as purposeful direction, and, if that product 

is the alleged infringing product, the first two prongs of the specific jurisdiction test are 

met. See Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc., 326 F.3d 1194, 1205 (Fed. Cir. 

2003) (“Personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendant existed with respect to a 

trademark infringement claim when the defendant’s products that allegedly infringed 

plaintiff’s trademark had been shipped to forum state from out of state.”) (discussing 

Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 946 F.2d 1384, 1391 (8th Cir. 1991)). 

However, even if the first two prongs are met, a court cannot exercise personal 

jurisdiction if the out-of-state defendant presents a “compelling case that the presence of 

Case 2:14-cv-01183-GMS Document 29 Filed 12/15/14 Page 3 of 8
- 4 - 

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 

some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” Burger King, 471 

U.S. at 477. 

 2. Analysis 

 Plaintiffs do not contend that BDP is subject to general jurisdiction in Arizona, so 

personal jurisdiction will only lie if the Arizona state courts could exercise specific 

jurisdiction over BDP. As noted above, Plaintiffs allege that BDP sold infringing 

products throughout the United States, including in Arizona, through Micro Matic, a 

third-party distributor. In Beverly Hills Fan, the Federal Circuit held that a manufacturer 

and third-party distributor of ceiling fans, who were both accused of infringing a patented 

device, purposefully directed their activities at the forum state, despite the fact that the 

manufacturer had not directly sold any fans into the state. The third-party distributor had 

directly sold the fans to at least six retail outlets in the forum state, but the court also 

found personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer because it had “purposefully shipped 

the accused fan into [the forum state] through an established distribution channel.” More 

recently, in AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Technology Corp., 689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 

2012), the Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s finding of no personal jurisdiction 

based upon a Plaintiff’s “bare formulaic accusation” of an established distribution 

channel when the Plaintiff failed to do more than simply allege that a distribution channel 

existed. 

 The present case is akin to Beverly Hills Fan and unlike AFTG-TG. Plaintiffs 

allege and provide sworn testimony that Micro Matic has been distributing BDP products 

for over twelve years throughout the United States. In addition, Plaintiffs have provided 

evidence that Micro Matic has business relationships with at least eighteen wholesale 

beer distributors in thirty-two locations in Arizona, who purchase the draft beer cleaners 

from Micro Matic and resell it to customers in Arizona. Thus, Plaintiffs have adequately 

alleged that there is an established distribution channel linking BDP to Arizona. 

 BDP contends that, because many of the products that allegedly infringe ‘679 are 

sold outside of Arizona, exercising jurisdiction over BDP is not proper. This contention is 

Case 2:14-cv-01183-GMS Document 29 Filed 12/15/14 Page 4 of 8
- 5 - 

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 

without merit because Micro Matic’s sales of BDP products into Arizona alone provide 

the minimum contacts necessary to support personal jurisdiction. See Beverly Hills Fan, 

21 F.3d at 1560 (holding that the standard for personal jurisdiction was met in Virginia 

when the infringing products were sold by a distributor “to customers in the United 

States, including customers in Virginia”). 

 Since Plaintiffs have shown that BDP purposefully directed its activity towards 

Arizona, and that the suit arises out of that directed activity, the burden shifts to BDP to 

show that exercising personal jurisdiction is not “reasonable and fair.” Electronics for 

Imaging, 340 F.3d at 1350. In determining whether exercising jurisdiction is reasonable 

and fair, a court considers “(1) the burden on the defendant, (2) the interests of the forum 

state, (3) the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining relief, (4) the interstate judicial system’s 

interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and (5) the shared 

interest of the several states in furthering substantive social policies.” Id. at 1350. 

 These factors do not suggest that litigation in Arizona is unreasonable or unfair. 

BDP is based in Florida, and while traveling to Phoenix would create a burden on the 

owners of BDP, the burden is not substantially more unreasonable than litigating in 

Florida would be. Arizona has an interest in enforcing patent laws in its geographic 

boundaries, and Plaintiffs have an interest in obtaining relief in Arizona. The interstate 

judicial system’s interest and the shared interest of the several states are both neutral 

factors. In sum, only one factor weighs in favor of litigating the case in Florida, and 

considered as a whole these factors do not suggest that this case presents “the rare 

situation in which the plaintiff’s interest and the state’s interest in adjudicating the 

dispute in the forum are so attenuated that they are clearly outweighed by the burden of 

subjecting the defendant to litigation within the forum.” Beverly Hills Fan, 21 F.3d at 

1568 (citing Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477). 

 Construing the pleadings and affidavits in favor of Plaintiffs, they have met their 

prima facie burden of showing that this court may exercise personal jurisdiction over 

BDP. 

Case 2:14-cv-01183-GMS Document 29 Filed 12/15/14 Page 5 of 8
- 6 - 

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 

B. Dismissal for Improper Venue 

 Venue is proper in a patent case “in the judicial district where the defendant 

resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and 

established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b) (emphasis added). Despite the 

statute’s requirement that a defendant have a regular and established place of business, 

when a defendant is a corporation, personal jurisdiction alone is adequate to support 

venue. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Pedre Promotional Prods. Inc., 395 F.3d 1275, 1280 (Fed. 

Cir. 2005) (“Venue in a patent action against a corporate defendant exists whenever there 

is personal jurisdiction.”). In patent cases where a defendant moves to dismiss both on the 

grounds of personal jurisdiction and venue, therefore, “no separate venue inquiry is 

necessary.” Id. 

Because the Court has personal jurisdiction over BDP, the case may not be 

dismissed for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3). See id. (“Venue in a patent action 

against a corporate defendant exists whenever there is personal jurisdiction.”). 

C. Transfer 

 1. Legal Standard 

 The Court may transfer a case “to any other district or division where it might 

have been brought” when such transfer serves “the convenience of parties and witnesses” 

and is “in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Even in patent cases, transfer 

motions are governed by “the law of the regional circuit in which [a district court] sits.” 

Winner Intern. Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The district 

court considers multiple factors in determining whether to transfer, and ultimately 

decides whether transfer is proper based on an “individualized, case-by-case 

consideration of convenience and fairness.” Jones v. GNC Francising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 

498 (9th Cir. 2000). A defendant has the burden of showing that the action should be 

transferred, and “must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting [a 

plaintiff’s] choice of forum.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 

Case 2:14-cv-01183-GMS Document 29 Filed 12/15/14 Page 6 of 8
- 7 - 

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 

834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986); see N. Acceptance Trust v. Gray, 423 F.2d 653, 654 (9th Cir. 

1970) (stating that “substantial weight” should be given to the plaintiff’s choice of 

forum); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947) (stating that “the plaintiff’s 

choice of forum should rarely be disturbed”). 

 2. Analysis 

 Neither party disputes that the action might have been brought in Florida. The 

Ninth Circuit has adopted the following non-exclusive list of factors for courts to 

consider when ruling on a motion to transfer: “(1) the location where the relevant 

agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the 

governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) the respective parties’ contacts with 

the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the chosen forum, 

(6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of 

compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the 

ease of access to sources of proof.” Jones, 211 F.3d at 498. 

 The first factor is not relevant to the case at hand, since the parties did not 

negotiate any agreements. The second factor is neutral, since any court hearing the case 

will be relying on federal patent law. The third factor weighs in favor of keeping the case 

in Arizona, where Plaintiffs filed the case. The fourth factor also weighs in favor of 

keeping the case in Arizona: Plaintiffs provide evidence that BDP had an established 

distribution channel here and Plaintiffs are residents of Arizona. The fifth factor is 

neutral—while Micro Matic has business relationships with several wholesale beer 

distributors in Arizona, many of the products Plaintiffs claim have been infringed are not 

sold directly into Arizona. The three factors related to inconvenience weigh slightly in 

favor of transfer, but not decisively so, because “modern transportation and 

communication have made it much less burdensome for a party sued to defend itself 

outside its home state.” Patent Rights Protection Grp., LLC v. Video Gaming Techs., Inc., 

603 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2010) (internal quotations omitted). On the whole, these 

eight factors support the conclusion that transfer is not warranted in this case. 

Case 2:14-cv-01183-GMS Document 29 Filed 12/15/14 Page 7 of 8
- 8 - 

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 

CONCLUSION

Construing the pleadings and affidavits in favor of Plaintiffs, they have met the 

prima facie burden of showing that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over 

BDP. BDP has failed to show that this exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable or 

unfair or that a transfer to Florida is warranted. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant BDP Innovative Chemicals 

Company’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is DENIED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike portions of BDP’s 

Reply (Doc. 26) is GRANTED. 

 Dated this 15th day of December, 2014. 

Case 2:14-cv-01183-GMS Document 29 Filed 12/15/14 Page 8 of 8