Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00436/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00436-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

GREAT AMERICAN DUCK RACES, )

INC., )) Plaintiff, ) 2:12-cv-00436 JWS ) vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION ) INTELLECTUAL SOLUTIONS, INC. ) [Re: Motion at Docket 14]

et al., )) Defendants. ))

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 14, defendants Intellectual Solutions, Inc. (“Intellectual Solutions”),

Claypool Resources, LLC (“Claypool”), Mervin Dayan, Vivian Dayan, Maurice Dayan,

and Jennifer Dayan (collectively “defendants”) move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(2) to be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff Great

American Duck Races, Inc. (“plaintiff” or “Great American”) opposes the motion at

docket 21. Defendants reply is at docket 24. Oral argument was requested but would

not assist the court. 

II. BACKGROUND

Great American is an Arizona corporation that manufactures and sells pool and

spa products. One of its products is the Underwater Light Show (“ULS”),1

 which creates

an elaborate light display in swimming pools. ULS is sold at many retailers, including

Target and Walmart. Great American is the exclusive licensee of two patents–United

1

Plaintiff also manufactures and sells the Underwater Light Show & Fountain.

Case 2:12-cv-00436-JWS Document 31 Filed 07/31/12 Page 1 of 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

States Patent Number 7,413,319 and United States Patent Number 7,717,582–both

entitled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR UNDERWATER LIGHT DISPLAY,” and both of

which contain disclosures pertaining to the ULS. Plaintiff maintains that defendants

have offered for sale virtually identical copies of ULS products that infringe on both

patents. The allegedly infringing products are in boxes displaying the GOOD TIMES

mark.

Intellectual Solutions is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business in New Jersey. It is an intellectual property holding company. It owns the

GOOD TIMES mark. Intellectual Solutions licenses the GOOD TIMES mark to

Claypool. Claypool is a limited liability company organized under Delaware law with its

principal place of business in New Jersey. Claypool imports the allegedly infringing

products into the United States and sells them to ASAP. ASAP sells the allegedly

infringing products to retailers.

Intellectual Solutions, Claypool, and ASAP are each owned by Vivian and

Jennifer Dayan. Their respective husbands, Mervin and Maurice Dayan, have been

delegated managerial authority over each company. Maurice Dayan is the son of

Mervin and Vivian Dayan.

Great American filed suit in federal court asserting claims against ASAP,

Intellectual Solutions, Claypool, Mervin Dayan, Vivian Dayan, Maurice Dayan, and

Jennifer Dayan. Plaintiff has asserted two claims for patent infringement, and one state

law claim for unfair competition. 

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Where a defendant moves to dismiss a complaint [pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(2),] for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden

of establishing that a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant.”2

 Where the

motion is based only upon written materials, rather than an evidentiary hearing, the

2

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004).

-2-

Case 2:12-cv-00436-JWS Document 31 Filed 07/31/12 Page 2 of 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

plaintiff is required only to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction.3

Uncontroverted allegations in the complaint are taken as true, and conflicts between

parties over statements contained in affidavits are resolved in favor of the plaintiff.4

“Where, as here, there is no applicable federal statute governing personal

jurisdiction, the district court applies the law of the state in which the district court sits.”5

Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.2(a) authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction to the

extent permitted by federal due process requirements.6

 Due process requires that the

defendant “have certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance

of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”7

IV. DISCUSSION

Defendants concede in their response that Great American has made a prima

facie case that the court has personal jurisdiction over Intellectual Solutions.8

Accordingly, the only issues are whether the court has personal jurisdiction over

Claypool and the individual defendants.

Federal Circuit law governs personal jurisdiction over defendants to claims

“intimately related to patent law.”9

 Personal jurisdiction over defendants to other claims

is governed by the law of the regional circuit.10 Plaintiff has asserted two claims for

patent infringement and one state law claim for unfair competition.

3

Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th Cir. 2002).

4

Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 575 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2009).

5

Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d at 800.

6

Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a).

7

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotations omitted).

8

Doc. 24 at 3 n.1; see, e.g., Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d

1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

9

Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Industries, Inc., 326 F.3d 1194, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

10Id.

-3-

Case 2:12-cv-00436-JWS Document 31 Filed 07/31/12 Page 3 of 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

General jurisdiction arises where a defendant has “substantial” or “continuous

and systematic” contacts with the forum and therefore “can be haled into court in that

state in any action, even if the action is unrelated to those contacts.”11 None of the

defendants’ contacts with Arizona are so substantial, or continuous and systematic that

general jurisdiction may be exercised. 

Specific jurisdiction exists where “(1) the defendant has performed some act or

consummated some transaction within the forum or otherwise purposefully availed

himself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum, (2) the claim arises out of

or results from the defendant’s forum-related activities, and (3) the exercise of

jurisdiction is reasonable.”12

A defendant purposefully avails itself of a forum if it “delivers its products into the

stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in

the forum.”13 Under Federal Circuit law, personal jurisdiction may be exercised over a

defendant who “purposefully ship[s] products through an established distribution

channel with the expectation that those products w[ill] be sold in the forum.”14 

A. Claypool

Defendants argue that Claypool is a licensee of Intellectual Solutions that imports

goods from China under the GOOD TIMES mark, and then sells them to ASAP, who in

11Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat., Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000)

(citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 415 (1984)); see also

Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., 444 F.3d 1356, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

12Id.

13World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 298 (1980).

14Nuance Comm., Inc. v. Abbyy Software, 626 F.3d 1222, 1233 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

Defendants argue that the Nuance court relied on the foreign defendant’s statements in trade

magazines that it would “conquer” the U.S. market. Doc. 24 at 8. Defendants are mistaken–the

controlling consideration was that the foreign defendant “purposefully ship[ped] the accused

software products into [the forum] through an established distribution channel, with the

expectation that copies of those products [would] be sold in [the forum].” Nuance, 626 F.3d at

1234.

-4-

Case 2:12-cv-00436-JWS Document 31 Filed 07/31/12 Page 4 of 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

turn sells them to wholesalers and retailers in the United States. Defendants maintain

that Claypool has no contacts with Arizona, could not anticipate being haled into court in

Arizona, and that importing goods with the GOOD TIMES mark into the United States

does not constitute activity that is purposely directed at Arizona.

Plaintiff argues that sale of the imported products to an affiliated

company–ASAP–that it knew would distribute the products to Arizona, constitutes

purposeful availment. Claypool does not dispute that it imports the allegedly infringing

products into the United States or sells those products to ASAP. Because Claypool and

ASAP have the same owners and managers, Claypool knew that the allegedly infringing

products would be sold in Arizona. Because plaintiff’s claims arise out of the allegedly

infringing products presence in Arizona, plaintiff has made a prima facie showing that

Claypool is subject to personal jurisdiction in Arizona.

B. Individual Defendants

Each of the individual defendants have submitted declarations stating that they

have no personal contacts with Arizona.15 Mervin and Maurice Dayan state that they

have never resided or owned property in Arizona. They argue that plaintiff’s allegations

do not support the proposition that either one purposefully directed any conduct at

Arizona or its residents. Vivian and Jennifer Dayan make identical arguments and add

that neither has been involved in the management or operation of Intellectual Solutions,

Claypool, or ASAP.

Plaintiffs respond that personal jurisdiction over each of the individual defendants

is proper on a veil-piercing theory. In Arizona, “an officer, director or shareholder of a

corporation may not be held liable for the torts of the corporation unless (1) he

authorized or participated in the actions or (2) the corporation is an alter ego.”16

15Docs. 14-1, 14-2, 14-3, 14-4.

16Maloof v. Raper Sales, Inc., 557 P.2d 522, 525 (Ariz. 1976). See also Flynt Distrib.

Co., Inc. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1393–94 (9th Cir. 1984).

-5-

Case 2:12-cv-00436-JWS Document 31 Filed 07/31/12 Page 5 of 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

 “In determining whether alter ego liability applies, [federal courts] apply the law of

the forum state.”17 In Arizona, “alter-ego status . . . exist[s] when there is such unity of

interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporation and owners

cease to exist.”18 Factors bearing on this question include: failure to maintain corporate

formalities; undercapitalization; commingling of corporate and personal finances;

plaintiff’s lack of knowledge about a separate corporate existence, and diversion of

corporate property for personal use.19

Because plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction,

and because factual conflicts are resolved in plaintiff’s favor, it is only necessary to

evaluate plaintiff’s evidence that alter ego status exists. Plaintiff has presented

evidence that Intellectual Solutions had not filed an annual tax report since 2008 and

that its status was void as of March 1, 2011.20 Defendants respond that Intellectual

Solutions paid its 2009 and 2010 taxes on March 2, 2012, and reinstated its

charter–defendants have produced evidence that Intellectual Solutions is currently in

good standing. Regardless of whether its failure to pay taxes was an “oversight,”21 it is

evidence that Intellectual Solutions has failed to observe corporate formalities. It is also

undisputed that the Dayan wives own Intellectual Solutions. 

Based on the plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint, and the limited evidence that

has been provided with the parties’ briefing, the court is unable to conclude whether

veil-piercing is appropriate. In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(2), “[a] court may

17In re Schwarzkopf, 626 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th Cir. 2010).

18Dietel v. Day, 492 P.2d 455, 457 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971).

19See Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co., 876 P.2d 1190, 1195

(Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).

20Doc. 21-6 at 2. See also 8 Del. C. § 510 (if a corporation fails to pay taxes “the charter

of the corporation shall be void, and all powers conferred by law upon the corporation are

declared inoperative”).

21Doc. 24 at 4.

-6-

Case 2:12-cv-00436-JWS Document 31 Filed 07/31/12 Page 6 of 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

order discovery.”22 “Discovery may appropriately be [ordered] where pertinent facts

bearing on the question of jurisdiction are controverted or where a more satisfactory

showing of the facts is necessary.”23 A more satisfactory showing that Intellectual

Solutions–or any of the other corporate entities–is the alter ego of the individual

defendants is necessary in this instance.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, it is ORDERED that the parties shall have 49 days to

conduct limited discovery regarding the alleged alter ego status of ASAP, Claypool, and

Intellectual Solutions.

Defendant’s motion at docket 14 to dismiss Claypool for lack of personal

jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) is DENIED. With respect to Mervin Dayan, Vivian

Dayan, Maurice Dayan, and Jennifer Dayan, the motion is DENIED without prejudice to

renewal after the parties have engaged in the limited discovery ordered above.

DATED this 31st day of July 2012.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Data Disc, Inc. v.

Systems Technology Assocs., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 n.1 (9th Cir. 1977).

23Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1285 n.1.

-7-

Case 2:12-cv-00436-JWS Document 31 Filed 07/31/12 Page 7 of 7