Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02677/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02677-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hubb Systems, LLC
Counter-defendant
microDATA GIS, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

1 All parties have consented to my jurisdiction,

including entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c) for all proceedings.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUBB SYSTEMS, LLC,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MICRODATA GIS, INC.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-2677 BZ

ORDER DENYING MICRODATA

INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Before me is defendant microDATA, Inc.’s motion to

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.1 microDATA argues that the

“first-to-file rule” requires me to dismiss this action or, at

least, to stay or transfer it to the District of Vermont. 

Alternatively, microDATA asserts that this Court lacks

personal jurisdiction over it. For the reasons discussed,

microDATA’s motion is DENIED. 

In its complaint, plaintiff Hubb Systems, LLC, alleges

that microDATA has violated, and continues to violate, federal

and state law laws by infringing on its “Data911” mark,

Case 3:07-cv-02677-BZ Document 44 Filed 08/02/07 Page 1 of 9
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 Defendant microDATA requested this court to take

judicial notice of the Order dated July 9 filed in United

States District Court for the District of Vermont, Case No. 

2:07-cv-108, and of Hubb’s Motion to Dismiss filed in Vermont

Court and dated July 2, 2007. Having received no opposition

from Hubb, I take judicial notice of these documents. 

2

falsely designating the origin of its products, 

cybersquatting, and engaging in unfair competition. In

particular, Hubb alleges that microDATA’s “microData911” mark

is confusingly similar to the Data911 mark and is therefore

likely to cause mistake, confusion, or deception in the minds

of customers, potential customers, and the public at large. 

Hubb relatedly alleges that microDATA registered the domain

name microdata911.com in bad faith and with the intent to

profit on its similarity to Hubb’s data911.com. 

The record discloses that on January 3, 2007, Hubb sent a

letter to microDATA asking it immediately to discontinue use

of the microDATA 911 mark. microDATA responded in a January

18 letter denying wrongdoing, and Hubb rejected its assertions

three months later in a letter dated April 27, 2007. See

Heinrich Decl. at ¶¶ 5-8, Exhs. A-C. On May 10, microDATA

sued Hubb in the District of Vermont seeking a declaration of

non-infringement and acknowledgment of microDATA’s superior

rights to its mark. On May 21, 2007 Hubb filed this action. 

Id. at ¶ 10, Exh. D. microDATA promptly moved the Vermont

court to enjoin this action. Instead, that court stayed the

Vermont proceedings pending the resolution of the motions

pending here.2

 

The first-to-file rule is a rule of federal comity that

permits district courts to decline jurisdiction if a complaint

Case 3:07-cv-02677-BZ Document 44 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 9
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

involving the same issues and parties has been filed

previously in another district. Pacesetter Systems, Inc. v.

Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982); see also

Inherent.com v. Martindale-Hubbell, 420 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1097

(N.D. Cal. 2006). At the district court’s discretion, it may

transfer, stay, or dismiss the duplicative action. Alltrade,

Inc., v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 623 (9th Cir.

1991). Exceptions to the first-to-file rule include suits

filed in bad faith, in anticipation of imminent litigation, or

as an attempt to forum shop. Id. at 625. Generally, the

first-forum court determines whether exceptions apply. 

Pacesetter, supra, 678 F.2d at 96. Intuitive Surgical v.

California Institute of Technology, 2007 WL 1150787, at *7

(N.D. Cal).

Here, however, the Vermont court stayed its first-filed

action with microDATA’s motion to enjoin before it and with

full knowledge that microDATA’s motion to dismiss raises the

first-to-file issue before this Court. I read the Vermont

court’s decision to stay itself as essentially deferring to

this Court to resolve the dispute. Because the Vermont court

stayed itself, the principle of comity has been satisfied and

is no longer an obstacle to this action. I therefore decline

to invoke the first-to-file rule, and will consider the

remainder of microDATA’s arguments for dismissal.

microDATA next contends that this Court lacks personal

jurisdiction since it is a Vermont corporation with very

little contact with California. Hubb argues that this court

has specific jurisdiction over microDATA primarily due to the

Case 3:07-cv-02677-BZ Document 44 Filed 08/02/07 Page 3 of 9
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

harmful effects on Hubb of microDATA’s actions in California. 

These harmful effects arise from microDATA’s appearance at

multiple trade shows in California and microDATA’s website,

which lists upcoming trade shows and invites browsers to visit

them. 

California’s long arm statute, Cal. Code Civ. P. §

410.10, allows the exercise of federal jurisdiction on any

basis provided under the federal constitution. Under Ninth

Circuit law, specific jurisdiction lies if: 1) the defendant

has performed acts or consummated transactions within the

forum, purposefully availed themselves of the privileges of

the forum, or purposefully directed activities toward the

forum; 2) the claim arises out of the defendant’s forumrelated activities; and 3) jurisdiction is reasonable. See

Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir.

2006); Bancroft & Masters v. August Nat’l Inc., 223 F.3d 1082,

1086 (9th Cir 2000). 

Even where there is no evidence of sales or transactions

in a forum, purposeful activities resulting in harmful effects

within the forum may provide the basis for jurisdiction. See

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). The Calder effects test

satisfies the “purposeful availment” prong if: 1) the

defendant committed an intentional act 2) which was expressly

aimed at the forum state and 3) caused harm “the brunt of

which the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the

forum state.” Bancroft, 223 F.3d at 1087. 

Finally, where the jurisdictional question is decided on

the papers and prior to jurisdictional discovery, the

Case 3:07-cv-02677-BZ Document 44 Filed 08/02/07 Page 4 of 9
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 Although microDATA suggests that the trade shows it

attends are aimed primarily at national and not California

audiences, See microDATA’s Reply at 7, there is little evidence

to support this assertion. Moreover, microDATA admits that it

has fielded inquires from a “potential customer in California.” 

Heinrich Supp. Decl. ¶ 4. 

5

plaintiff need only present a prima facie showing of

jurisdictional facts. Doe v. Unocal, 248 F.3d 915, 922 (9th

Cir. 2001). In determining whether the plaintiff has met this

burden, the court must accept uncontroverted allegations in

the complaint as true, even if unsupported by any evidence in

the record before the court. See AT&T Co. v. Compagnie

Bruxelles Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996). 

On the record before me, I conclude that Hubb has met its

burden. Specifically, microDATA is alleged to have knowingly

and willfully adopted the use of a mark that is confusingly

similar to Hubb’s mark in an attempt to profit from Hubb’s

widely and favorably recognized trade name and mark. 

Complaint at ¶¶ 11-18. microDATA and Hubb’s products are

allegedly similar in functionality, Complaint at ¶ 9, and

compete for the same business. See Complaint at ¶ 3; Newton

Decl. ¶¶ 4-6. MicroDATA is alleged to have attended several

trade shows in California, and to have advertised its

microDATA911 mark in the process.3

 Complaint at ¶ 3; Newton

Decl. ¶¶ 3-5. microDATA also directed several letters to

Hubb, suggesting knowledge of Hubb’s California base. 

Moreover, Hubb alleges that microDATA has acted in bad

faith by adopting a domain name - “microdata911.com” - that is

confusingly similar to Hubb’s existing domain name,

“data911.com”. Complaint at ¶¶ 20, 22. Although microDATA

Case 3:07-cv-02677-BZ Document 44 Filed 08/02/07 Page 5 of 9
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

insists that its website is passive and does not target

California residents, Heinrich Decl. at ¶ 17, it is undisputed

that it has used its website to advertise its appearances at

trade shows in California. See Newton Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5. 

Finally, Hubb contends that the effects of microDATA’s actions

will be borne in large part by Hubb in California. See Hubb’s

Opp. at 14; Complaint at ¶¶ 2, 16, 18, 23, 27. Insofar as

Hubb’s base of operations is in Alameda, California, Complaint

at ¶ 2, the locus of the effects that would flow from

microDATA’s alleged infringement at the California trade shows

will largely be borne in California. See Autodesk, Inc. v. RK

Mace Engineering, Inc., 2004 WL 603382, at *6 (N.D. Cal.

2004). 

microDATA, a Vermont corporation, contends that it has no

offices, facilities, bank accounts, licenses, or mailing

addresses in California. See Heinrich Decl. ¶¶ 3, 14-16. It

also contends that it has never consummated a sale in

California. Heinrich Supp. Decl. ¶ 3. On a prima facie

level, however, the record demonstrates that microDATA has

purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting

business in California by intentionally and expressly aiming

allegedly unlawful activities at California, where the brunt

of the harm will be borne by Hubb in California. See Rio

Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007,

1019-21 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming the district court’s

partial reliance on defendant’s forum-targeted advertisements

in applying Calder); see also Autodesk, Inc., 2004 WL 603382,

at *5-*6 (applying the Calder effects test in the context of

Case 3:07-cv-02677-BZ Document 44 Filed 08/02/07 Page 6 of 9
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 The factors include: 1) the extent of defendant’s

purposeful interjection into the forum state’s affairs; 2) the

burden on defendant of litigating in the forum; 3) the extent

of conflict with the sovereignty of defendant’s home state; 4)

the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute; 5) the

most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy; 6) the

importance of the forum to plaintiff’s interest in convenient

and fair relief; and 7) the existence of an alternate forum. 

See Autodesk, Inc., 2004 WL 603382, at *7.

7

copyright infringement).

Nor can there be any doubt that Hubb’s claims arise, at

least in part, from microDATA’s forum-related activities.

Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 780 (1984)

(noting that jurisdiction may be present where the cause of

action arises out of activity occurring at least partially in

the forum state). As already discussed, Hubb alleges that

microDATA has advertised its infringing mark on its website

and at trade shows in California. Hubb’s claims arise in part

from microDATA’s allegedly unlawful activities occurring

within California.

Jurisdiction over microDATA in this Court is also

reasonable. When defendants have been shown to purposefully

direct activities toward the forum state, “there is a

presumption of reasonableness that the defendant bears the

burden of overcoming by presenting a compelling case that

jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” Columbia Pictures v.

Krypton Broadcasting, 106 F.3d 284, 289 (9th Cir. 1997)

(internal citations omitted). A seven-factor test guides a

court’s determination of reasonableness.4 

microDATA has traveled to California multiple times to

attend trade shows. Moreover, microDATA has obtained counsel

Case 3:07-cv-02677-BZ Document 44 Filed 08/02/07 Page 7 of 9
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 While my decision relies solely on the papers filed

in relation to microDATA’s motion to dismiss, evidence

submitted with Hubb’s motion for preliminary injunction

supports the assertion of jurisdiction over microDATA. 

8

in California through the San Jose-based Terra Law, LLP. 

Jurisdiction is not rendered unreasonable simply because

pursuit of the action may necessitate some travel by

microDATA. See Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474

(1985) (noting that the advance of modern technology has

lessened the burden of long-distance travel and

communication). Hubb has included allegations in its

complaint not present in microDATA’s Vermont suit, suggesting

that the pursuit of this action will lead to a more complete

and efficient resolution of the issues between the parties. 

Given the nature of Hubb’s allegations and microDATA’s

contacts with California, California has a clear interest in

adjudicating the dispute. Hubb has a clear interest in

adjudicating the action close to its base of operations. This

Court may properly assert personal jurisdiction over

microDATA.5

Finally, microDATA argues that venue does not lie in this

district. Venue is proper if the defendant “resides” in the

judicial district wherein the suit was filed. 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b)(1). For purposes of venue, a corporation is a

resident of any judicial district in which it is subject to

personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Because I have

found that Hubb has met its burden of demonstrating the

presence of personal jurisdiction over microDATA, this Court

is an appropriate venue for Hubb’s suit.

Case 3:07-cv-02677-BZ Document 44 Filed 08/02/07 Page 8 of 9
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

Having declined to invoke the first-to-file rule, and

having concluded that personal jurisdiction and venue lie in

this Court, microDATA’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Date: August 1, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\Hubb Systems\first to file order 2.BZ VERSION.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-02677-BZ Document 44 Filed 08/02/07 Page 9 of 9