Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02025/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02025-0/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

Technical Witts, Inc., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Skynet Electronic Co., Ltd., Skynet

Electronic Corp., Jim Liang, Jane Doe

Liang, John and Jane Does 1-30, XYZ

Corporation 1-30, ABC Partnerships 1-30,

and LMN Entities, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2025-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Presently pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Motion for

More Definite Statement. Plaintiff has filed a Response (Dkt. #33) and Defendants have

filed a Reply (Dkt. #35). The Court considers all the papers and issues the following Order.

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Technical Witts, Inc., brought this lawsuit against Defendants Skynet

Electronic Co., Ltd., a Taiwanese corporation ("Skynet Taiwan"), Skynet Electronic

Corporation, a California corporation ("Skynet California"), and Jim Liang and his wife,

Judia Liang, both of whom are Taiwanese citizens. Plaintiff has alleged claims for patent

infringement (Count I), inducement of patent infringement (Count II), contributory patent

Case 3:04-cv-02025-MHM Document 46 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 12
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 -

infringement (Count III), fraud (Count IV), fraudulent inducement (Count V), and negligent

misrepresentation (Count VI), and injunctive relief (Count VII).

Plaintiff states that it holds all legal rights to the '329 Patent, which applies to systems

employing power converters adapted to provide zero-voltage switching ("soft switching")

at turn-on and turn-off transitions of the switches therein. Plaintiff has alleged that

Defendants have engaged in, and may continue to engage in, the manufacture and sale of

power supplies that infringe on Plaintiff's'329 Patent. Plaintiff claims that Defendants have

been aware of their infringing activity since either March 7, 2001 after Mr. Liang's

presentation at the 2001 Applied Power Electronics Conference in Anaheim, California, or

June 1, 2001 when Plaintiff's Chief Engineer, Ernest Wittenbreder traveled to Defendants'

Taiwan offices and informed Defendants of the infringement. 

Plaintiff states that Mr. Liang, acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of

Skynet Taiwan, participated in a series of email and telephone correspondences with

Plaintiff. In fact, Mr. Liang invited Mr. Wittenbreder by email to visit Defendants' office in

Taiwan. Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Wittenbreder's invitation to Taiwan was under the guise

of formalizing a licensing agreement with Defendants' use of the '329 Patent. Plaintiff

alleges, however, that after Mr. Wittenbreder arrived at Defendants' office, Mr. Liang

informed him that Defendants wished merely to establish a consulting relationship with

Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that Defendants coerced Plaintiff to make the trip to Taiwan

despite knowing that it did not intend to formalized a licensing agreement with Plaintiff.

Plaintiff claims resulting damages including lost man-hours and lost commercial

opportunities. 

Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

12(b)(2), 12(b)(6), and 9(b). Specifically, Mr. Liang and Mrs. Liang move to dismiss based

on this Court's lack of personal jurisdiction. Judia Liang also moves to dismiss all claims

against her for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Furthermore, Judia

Liang, Jim Liang, Skynet Taiwan, and Skynet California move to dismiss Counts IV (fraud),

Cout V (fraudulent inducement), and Count VI (negligent misrepresentation) for failure to

Case 3:04-cv-02025-MHM Document 46 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 12
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 -

plead with particularity. Defendants also move to dismiss Counts IV, V, and VI for failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative, Defendants move for

a more definite statement in Counts IV, V, and VI.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION 

A defendant may move to dismiss a cause of action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff then bears the burden of demonstrating that

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

2004). The plaintiff "need only demonstrate facts that if true would support jurisdiction over

the defendant." Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995); Fields v. Sedgwick

Assoc. Risks, Ltd., 796 F.2d 299, 301 (9th Cir. 1986). Uncontroverted allegations in the

complaint must be taken as true. AT & T v. Compagnie Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588

(9th Cir. 1996). However, the court may not assume the truth of such allegations if they are

contradicted by affidavit. Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d

1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1977). 

II. DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be denied unless it is "clear that

no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the

allegations." Falkowski v. Imation Corp., 309 F.3d 1123, 1132 (9th Cir. 2002), citing

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). A

complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). "Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise,

and direct. No technical forms of pleading or motions are required." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e). In

all averments of fraud or mistake, however, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake

must be stated with particularity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The allegations must be "specific

enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute

the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have

done anything wrong." Semegen v. Weidner, 780 F .2d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 1985). These rules

Case 3:04-cv-02025-MHM Document 46 Filed 03/15/07 Page 3 of 12
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

- 4 -

"do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. To the

contrary, all the Rules require is 'a short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the

defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds on which it rests."

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). 

DISCUSSION

I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE LIANG DEFENDANTS

There are two independent limitations on a court's power to exercise personal

jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant: the applicable state's personal jurisdiction rule and

constitutional principles of due process. Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 (9th Cir.

1990); Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1286. Arizona's long-arm statute provides for personal

jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the United States

Constitution. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2(a); see also Uberti v. Leonardo, 181 Ariz. 565, 569, 892

P.2d 1354, 1358, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 906 (1995) (stating that under Rule 4.2(a), "Arizona

will exert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident litigant to the maximum extent allowed by

the federal constitution").

The exercise of jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant violates the protections

created by the due process clause unless the defendant has "minimum contacts" with the

forum State "he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there." Burger King

Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985). Personal jurisdiction may be either general

or specific. Panavision International, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1320 (9th Cir. 1990).

General jurisdiction exists where the defendant's contacts with the forum State are so

substantial or continuous and systematic that jurisdiction exists even if the cause of action

is unrelated to those contacts. Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l, Inc., 223 F.3d

1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000). The standard for establishing general jurisdiction is "fairly high."

Id.; Brand v. Menlove Dodge, 796 F.2d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 1986). The defendant's contacts

must approximate physical presence in the forum State. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801.

Factors considered in evaluating the extent of contacts include whether the defendant makes

sales, solicits or engages in business, designates an agent for service of process, holds a

Case 3:04-cv-02025-MHM Document 46 Filed 03/15/07 Page 4 of 12
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

- 5 -

license, or is incorporated in the forum State. Bancroft & Masters, 223 F.3d at 1086. Here,

there is no evidence to indicate that either Mr. or Mrs. Liang have had substantial or

continuous and systematic contacts with Arizona to warrant a finding of general jurisdiction.

Specific jurisdiction exists where the cause of action arises out of or relates to the

defendant's activities within the forum. Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1286. Specific jurisdiction

is analyzed using a three-prong test: (1) the non-resident defendant must purposefully direct

its activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or a resident thereof; or perform

some act by which it purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the

forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; (2) the claim must be one

which arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities; and (3) the

exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.

1987). Each of these conditions is required for asserting jurisdiction. Insur. Co. of N. Am.

v. Marina Salina Cruz, 649 F.2d 1266, 1270 (9th Cir. 1981).

The requirement of purposeful availment ensures that the defendant should reasonably

anticipate being haled into the forum State court based on his contacts. World-Wide

Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). The Ninth Circuit typically treats

"purposeful availment" somewhat differently in tort cases versus contract cases. Dole Food

Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2002). Tort cases are examined to determine

whether a defendant purposefully directed his activities at the forum State. Id. The analysis

applies an "effects" test that focuses on the forum in which the defendant's actions were felt,

whether or not the actions themselves occurred within the forum. See Schwarzenegger, 374

F.3d at 803 (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-90, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804

(1984)). A showing that a defendant purposefully directed his conduct toward a forum State

usually consists of evidence of the defendant's actions outside the forum State that are

directed at the forum, such as the distribution in the forum State of goods originating

elsewhere. Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774-75, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79

L.Ed.2d 790 (1984) (finding purposeful direction where defendant published magazines in

Ohio and circulated them in the forum State, New Hampshire); see also World-Wide

Case 3:04-cv-02025-MHM Document 46 Filed 03/15/07 Page 5 of 12
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

- 6 -

Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297-98 (noting that a “forum State does not exceed its powers

under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation that

delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be

purchased by consumers in the forum State”). 

The second factor requires that the claim arise out of or result from the defendant's

forum-related activities. A claim arises out of a defendant's conduct if the claim would not

have arisen "but for" the defendant's forum-related contacts. Panavision, 141 F.3d at 1322.

Once the plaintiff has satisfied the first two factors, the defendant bears the burden of

overcoming a presumption that jurisdiction is reasonable by presenting a compelling case

that specific jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 472-73. The

exercise of jurisdiction must not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial

justice." International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Several factors

are considered in assessing whether the exercise of jurisdiction over a non-resident is

reasonable. World-Wide Volkswagen, 444 U.S., at 292. The factors to consider include the

following: the burden on the defendant; the interests of the forum State; the plaintiff's interest

in obtaining relief; the judicial system's interest in obtaining an efficient resolution; and the

shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Id.

With regard to Plaintiff's patent claims, Federal Circuit law applies. Amana

Refrigeration Inc. v. Quadlux, Inc., 172 F.3d 852, 856 (Fed. Cir. 1999). To determine

specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-State defendant under the Federal Circuit, the

Court must look to 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 with the

forum State, and (3) assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. Inamed Corp.

v. Kuzmak, 249 F.3d, 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541,

1545 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). The first two factors correlate to the “minimum contacts” prong of

the International Shoe analysis. Id. (citing Akro, 45 F.3d at 1545). The third factor

correlates to the “fair play and substantial justice” prong. Id. (citing Akro, 45 F.3d at 1545).

Case 3:04-cv-02025-MHM Document 46 Filed 03/15/07 Page 6 of 12
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

- 7 -

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing minimum contacts; then defendants must prove

that it would be unreasonable to exercise jurisdiction. Id. (citing Akro, 45 F.3d at 1546).

Plaintiff argues that it has made a prima facie case that this Court has specific

jurisdiction over 

maintain that they have not purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting

activities within Arizona, nor have they invoked any benefits and protections of Arizona law,

and therefore they do not have sufficient minimum contacts with Arizona for this Court to

exercise jurisdiction over them. 

A. PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER JIM LIANG 

Plaintiff contends that this Court has jurisdiction over Jim Liang because Mr. Liang

corresponded with Plaintiff, who was in Arizona, via email and telephone. Plaintiff asserts

that during these telephone calls Mr. Liang made representations purporting to negotiate a

license agreement with Plaintiff and that Mr. Liang, via email, invited Plaintiff's Chief

Engineer, Mr. Wittenbreder, to travel to Taiwan. Plaintiff cites Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue

Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 379 F.3d 1120, 1133 (9th Cir. 2004) to assert that a

court should consider such things as telephone and mail contacts directed into the forum

State addressing a licensing agreement should be considered when deciding purposeful

availment. However, Plaintiff cites to the dissenting opinion in the 2004 Yahoo! case that

has been vacated. See Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 399

F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, upon rehearing the Ninth Circuit found that three

contacts with the forum State ((i) a cease and desist letter; (ii) serving service of process in

the forum State; and (iii) two interim orders directing action in the forum State) was enough

for the court to assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident, foreign defendant. Yahoo!

Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1208-1211 (9th Cir.

2005). The result in the rehearing of Yahoo! is distinguishable from this case because there,

the defendant initiated multiple and varied contacts with the forum State, including obtaining

two interim orders directing Yahoo! to take action in California, with substantial penalty if

Case 3:04-cv-02025-MHM Document 46 Filed 03/15/07 Page 7 of 12
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

- 8 -

Yahoo! did not take action. Id. at 1209. In the instant case, Mr. Liang simply responded to

emails and telephone calls to Plaintiff who happened to be in Arizona. 

Mr. Liang cites Peterson v. Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1244, 1262 (9th Cir. 1985) to assert that

an exchange of telephone calls and letters is not enough for the court to find personal

jurisdiction over him. Mr. Liang also asserts that he did not enter into the forum State in

search of business here, nor did he conduct activities in the forum State to invoke the benefits

and protections of Arizona laws. 

Mr. Liang did not voluntarily enter Arizona on his own accord either physically or

electronically. Nor has Mr. Liang intentionally directed his actions toward the State in a way

that would lend to a reasonable expectation of being haled into court here. In fact, when

Plaintiff contacted Defendants, Mr. Liang invited Plaintiff to discuss business possibilities

by Plaintiff visiting Defendants' office in Taiwan. Mr. Liang did not volunteer to visit, nor

did he visit, Arizona for the discussions. As Defendant asserted, the Ninth Circuit has found

that "[p]urposeful availment analysis turns upon whether the defendant's contacts are

attributable to his own actions or solely to the actions of the plaintiff." Decker Coal Co. v.

Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 840 (9th Cir. 1986). As stated above, Defendants'

emails and telephone calls were conducted in response to communications initiated by

Plaintiff. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has found that the forum State must be "the focal

point both of the story and of the harm suffered." Calder, 465 U.S. at 789. Here, Plaintiff

may assert that it suffered harm in Arizona but Arizona is not the focal point of both the story

and the harm that Plaintiff asserts. The Court also notes that the emails and telephone calls

between the parties did not result in any sort of continuous business agreement nor the

formation of a contract.

The Court finds that Mr. Liang did not reach out to Arizona to contact Plaintiff.

Defendant's acts include responding to emails and telephone calls initiated by Plaintiff, who

was in Arizona. During the course of their email correspondences, Mr. Liang invited Mr.

Wittenbreder to travel to Taiwan for a meeting. However, at no time did Mr. Liang

purposefully avail himself nor purposefully direct his activities toward Arizona, thereby

Case 3:04-cv-02025-MHM Document 46 Filed 03/15/07 Page 8 of 12
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

- 9 -

invoking the benefits of Arizona laws. Nor did Mr. Liang enter into any sort of contract or

business deal with any person or company in Arizona. 

Purposeful availment requires a finding that the defendant performed some type of

affirmative conduct which allows or promotes the transaction of business within the forum

State. Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir.2001). The Court finds that Plaintiff

has not proven that Mr. Liang purposefully availed himself of the laws and benefits of

Arizona's law for either the tort-based fraud claims or the patent infringement claims. Thus,

Mr. Liang should not reasonably anticipate being haled into court here. 

Since the Court finds that Plaintiff has not proven the first prong of the test – that Mr.

Liang has purposefully availed himself of the laws of Arizona – it does not consider whether

the claims against Mr. Liang arise out of whatever minimal contacts he may have had with

Arizona nor whether it would be reasonable to hale Mr. Liang into court here. Instead, the

Court finds that it would be inappropriate to find that it has personal jurisdiction over Mr.

Liang. 

B. PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER JUDIA LIANG 

Judia Liang contends that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over her. She asserts

that she lives thousands of miles away and is a citizen of Taiwan. Mrs. Liang has been

physically present in Arizona only once for a period of less than one day in 2004, and the

present claims against her do not arise out of that visit. Mrs. Liang asserts that she is named

in the present lawsuit merely because she is married to Mr. Liang. Plaintiff does not contest

her assertion. In fact, Plaintiff argues that the reason it named Mrs. Liang is because Arizona

is a community property State, thereby requiring naming Mrs. Liang in order to reach any

community property she owns with Mr. Liang. However, for the Court to exercise personal

jurisdiction over Mrs. Liang, it must find that she has purposefully availed herself of the laws

of Arizona. Calder, 465 U.S. at 790. The Court finds no evidence that Mrs. Liang has

purposefully availed herself of the laws of this State. Therefore, the Court finds that it would

be inappropriate to exercise personal jurisdiction over Mrs. Liang. Furthermore, because the

Case 3:04-cv-02025-MHM Document 46 Filed 03/15/07 Page 9 of 12
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

- 10 -

Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Mrs. Liang, it grants the Motion to Dismiss all claims

against her. 

II. PLEADING FRAUD 

Under FRCP 9(b), fraud must be pleaded with particularity as to the circumstances

of fraud, such as time, place, persons, false statements, and why those statements are false.

In re GlenFed Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541, 1548 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1994). Mere allegations that

the defendants' actions were “fraudulent” are insufficient. Hall v. Romero, 141 Ariz. 120,

124, 685 P.2d 757, 761 (Ct.App.1984). A complaint fails to state an actionable claim unless

all of the following elements have been alleged with particularity: (1) a representation, (2)

its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its

truth, (5) his intent that it should be acted upon by the person and in the manner reasonably

contemplated; (6) the hearer's ignorance of its falsity; (7) his reliance on its truth; (8) his right

to rely thereon, (9) his consequent and proximate injury. Nielson v. Flashberg, 101 Ariz.

335, 338-39, 419 P.2d 514, 517-18 (1966).

Defendants contend that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege sufficient particularity.

Defendant claims that the Complaint fails to set forth details as to what statements were false

or misleading, when the statements were made, how Plaintiff knew they were false.

Defendants also assert that Plaintiff must provide "contemporaneous statements or

information" to suggest that Dependants' statements were false or misleading when made.

Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 993 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Plaintiff asserts that it has pled fraud with sufficient particularity. Specifically,

Plaintiff states that Mr. Liang, acting in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Skynet

Taiwan, made fraudulent statements in or around May 2001 when he invited Mr.

Mittenbreder to travel to Defendant's facility in Taiwan for the purpose of formalizing a

licensing agreement. (Pl.'s 1st Amend. Compl. ¶ 92.) Plaintiff further asserts that upon Mr.

Wittenbreder's arrival, Mr. Liang refused to formalize a licensing agreement. (Pl.'s 1st

Amend. Compl. ¶ 95.) Instead, Mr. Wittenbreader stated that he never had any intention of

securing a licensing agreement, but rather wanted Mr. Wittenbreader to enter into a

Case 3:04-cv-02025-MHM Document 46 Filed 03/15/07 Page 10 of 12
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

- 11 -

consulting relationship with Skynet Taiwan. Id. Plaintiff alleges that "[u]pon information

and belief, [Mr.] Liang intended to bring Mr. Wittenbreder to the Taiwan site to obtain a

consulting agreement with Mr. Wittenbreder in lieu of a licensing agreement." (Pl.'s 1st

Amend. Compl. ¶ 96.) Plaintiff asserts that he relied on Mr. Liang's representation that the

reason for Mr. Wittenbreder's trip to Taiwan was to formalize a licensing agreement with

Defendant. (Pl.'s 1st Amend. Compl. ¶ 94.) Moreover, Pliantiff asserts that Mr. Liang sought

to obstruct and complicate prospective determinations of ownership of intellectual property

developed under a consulting agreement with the patent rights already owned by Plaintiff.

(Pl. 1st Amend. Compl. ¶ 97.) Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that it suffered damages

including lost man-hours and lost commercial opportunities because of Mr. Wittenbreder's

futile trip to Taiwan. (Pl. 1st Amend. Compl. ¶ 99.) 

As required by Rule 9(b), Plaintiff has pled the time, place, person, false statement

and the reason the statements were false. Plaintiff's Complaint provides that Defendant

Skynet Taiwan misrepresented Mr. Wittenbreder's trip to Taiwan, that Mr. Liang knew of the

falsity, that Mr. Liang intended to induce Mr. Wittenbreder to rely on his misrepresentation,

that Mr. Wittenbreder did, in fact, rely on Mr. Liang's misrepresentation, and that Plaintiff

suffered resulting damages. Engalla, 15 Cal.4th at 974. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff

has pled fraud with sufficient particularity to overcome a Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, the

Court denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts IV - VI for Failure to State Claims Upon

Which Relief Can be Granted. Furthermore, the Court denies Defendant's request for a more

definite statement of Courts IV - VI. 

IV. RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS

The Court considers Plaintiff's assertion that Skynet Taiwan and Skynet California

have not properly filed any responsive pleading. Defendant contends that all Defendants

have responded when they asked the Court to dismiss Counts IV - VI. Plaintiff asserts that

Counts IV - VI were only asserted against Mr. Liang. However, all three Counts incorporate

by reference all allegations contained in the previous paragraphs. Paragraph 92 states that

Mr. Liang acted "on behalf of Defendant Skynet" when it invited Mr. Wittenbreder to travel

Case 3:04-cv-02025-MHM Document 46 Filed 03/15/07 Page 11 of 12
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

- 12 -

to Taiwan. Since Plaintiff has incorporated Paragraph 92 by reference and because

Paragraph 92 describes action specifically relevant to Counts IV - VI, the Court finds that

Plaintiff asserted Counts IV - VI against Skynet Taiwan. Defendant states that Skynet

California is not a subsidiary of Skynet Taiwan, but rather is an independent corporate entity

over which Skynet Taiwan has no ownership interest. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that

Skynet California has not filed a responsive pleading. However, the Court finds no record

that Skynet California has received service of process. 

CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED, that the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' Motion

to Dismiss (Dkt. #20) in accordance with this Order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court grants Plaintiff's Stipulated Motion to

Extend Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #29). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause why the Court should

not dismiss the case as to Defendant Skynet California for lack of service of process pursuant

to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff shall show cause by March

30, 2007.

DATED this 12th day of March, 2007.

Case 3:04-cv-02025-MHM Document 46 Filed 03/15/07 Page 12 of 12