Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01681/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01681-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
F&G Research, Inc.
Defendant
Primax Electronics LTD.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRIMAX ELECTRONICS LTD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

F&G RESEARCH, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-01681 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING

AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING

SCHEDULED ON JULY 15, 2005:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does not

wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. Allen Brufsky, Esq., Counsel

for Defendant, is ORDERED to appear at the hearing either in person or by telephone. If Mr. Brufsky

intends to appear by telephone, he should so notify the Court by July 11, 2005, in writing and with a

telephone number at which he may be reached on the date of the hearing.

If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify

the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make

copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to

submit the citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil

Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority. The parties shall not file written responses to the questions posed in this notice.

The parties each shall have fifteen (15) minutes to address the following questions:
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

A. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

The Court tentatively DENIES the motion.

1. What is defendant’s response to plaintiff’s assertion that prior lawsuits against

plaintiff’s customers, the cease and desist letter, and the timing of plaintiff’s receipt of

draft settlement agreement between defendant and Dell created a reasonable

apprehension of an infringement suit, such that a justiciable controversy existed at the

time the complaint was filed? 

B. Motion to Transfer Venue

The Court tentatively DENIES the motion.

1. What is the status of plaintiff’s pending motion to transfer in the Florida litigation? 

2. How does plaintiff reconcile the argument in this motion that licenses that defendant

has obtained from other companies are irrelevant, with its argument in that it requires

jurisdictional discovery because Defendant’s business is licensing the patents in suit? 

C. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery and reserves

ruling on the motion.

1. The Federal Circuit has held that “sending infringement letters, without more activity in

a forum state, is not sufficient activity to satisfy the requirements of due process. Other

activities are required in order for a patentee to be subject to personal jurisdiction in

the forum.” Genetic Implant Systems, Inc. v. Core-Vent Corporation, 123 F.3d

1455, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also Deprenyl Animal Health, Inc. V. University

of Toronto Innovations Foundation, 297 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2002). What “other

activities” do plaintiff contend that defendant engages in within the forum that would

subject defendant to the jurisdiction of this Court?

2. Defendant has not filed a reply brief in connection with its motion to dismiss for lack of

personal jurisdiction. What is defendant’s response to plaintiff’s request for

jurisdictional discovery? 

3. Is plaintiff suggesting that defendant has consented to the jurisdiction of this Court by

filing other lawsuits in this district? If so, on what authority does it rely to support this

argument?

As to all motions, are there any other issues the parties wish to address?
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Dated: July 7, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE