Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01104/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01104-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anser Innovation LLC
Appellee
Petzila, Inc.
Appellant
Petzilla, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

PETZILA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ANSER INNOVATION LLC, A MINNESOTA 

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-1104

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in No. 3:14-cv-01354-EMC, 

Judge Edward M. Chen.

______________________ 

Decided: July 28, 2015

______________________ 

NICOLAS SPIROS GIKKAS, The Gikkas Law Firm, Palo 

Alto, CA, for plaintiff-appellant.

GRANT DAVID FAIRBAIRN, Fredrikson & Byron, PA, 

Minneapolis, MN, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by CHELSEA L. SOMMERS. 

______________________ 

Case: 15-1104 Document: 60-2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/28/2015
2 PETZILA, INC. v. ANSER INNOVATION LLC

Before LOURIE, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

Petzilla, Inc., d/b/a Petzila (“Petzilla”) appeals from 

decisions by the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California dismissing its case for lack 

of personal jurisdiction and denying-in-part jurisdictional 

discovery. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Petzilla and Anser Innovation LLC are start-up companies that developed products that allow pet owners to 

video-chat with their pets and release an edible treat. In 

2013, Anser sent a letter to Petzilla in California, inquiring whether Petzilla was interested in licensing Anser’s

U.S. Patent No. 7,878,152 (“the ’152 patent”) for Petzilla’s 

PetziConnect product. Petzilla answered by letter that 

while PetziConnect was not “in conflict” with the ’152 

patent, there could be cross-licensing opportunities between the companies. J.A. 102. Anser responded by 

letter that it was not interested in collaborating with 

Petzilla; that Petzilla should cease-and-desist from making, using, or offering for sale PetziConnect; and that if 

Petzilla made PetziConnect commercially available, Anser 

would take legal action.

On March 24, 2014, Petzilla brought this action, seeking declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of the ’152 patent. Anser moved to dismiss for lack of 

personal jurisdiction. Anser is a Minnesota limited liability company headquartered in Minnesota. Petzilla moved 

for expedited jurisdictional discovery to “(1) build a fuller 

factual record that sufficient contacts exist between Anser 

and California and (2) rebut contrary assertions made in 

Anser’s motion to dismiss and supporting declaration 

from its CEO.” J.A. 173–74. With its motion, Petzilla 

proposed requests for production, interrogatories, and 

subpoenas to third parties for the production of docuCase: 15-1104 Document: 60-2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/28/2015
PETZILA, INC. v. ANSER INNOVATION LLC 3

ments. Petzilla also sought leave to depose Anser and its 

CEO.

On May 20, 2014, the district court granted-in-part 

and denied-in-part Petzilla’s discovery motion. Petzilla, 

Inc. v. Anser Innovation LLC, No. 3:14-cv-1354-EMC 

(N.D. Cal. May 20, 2014), ECF No. 28 (J.A. 310–13). The 

court found that the requested discovery was overly broad

and that Petzilla had not shown a need for depositions of 

both Anser and its CEO, interrogatories if a deposition 

were allowed, or third-party discovery. Id. at 3 (J.A. 312). 

The court ruled that Petzilla could request documents 

from Anser and depose either Anser or its CEO, with the 

discovery “limited to Anser’s relationships with distributors and retailers—in particular, whether Anser contracted with an exclusive distributor or retailer to sell the 

patented product in California and [whether] the agreement was analogous to an exclusive patent license.” Id. at 

4 (J.A. 313). Petzilla requested documents from Anser

but did not depose Anser or its CEO.

Petzilla moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the discovery order, arguing that the produced 

documents contradicted statements in Anser’s motion to 

dismiss and the supporting declaration from its CEO. 

The court denied the motion, but granted Petzilla an 

extension of time to depose Anser’s CEO, noting that 

Petzilla could use the deposition to address the alleged 

inconsistencies. Despite this extension, Petzilla did not 

depose Anser’s CEO.

On September 23, 2014, the court granted Anser’s renewed motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

Petzilla, Inc. v. Anser Innovation LLC, No. 3:14-cv-1354-

EMC, 2014 WL 4744434, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2014). 

This appeal followed. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).

Case: 15-1104 Document: 60-2 Page: 3 Filed: 07/28/2015
4 PETZILA, INC. v. ANSER INNOVATION LLC

DISCUSSION

I.

We review personal jurisdiction determinations de 

novo, applying Federal Circuit law. Autogenomics, Inc. v. 

Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 

2009). Because the district court determined personal 

jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing, Petzilla 

needed to make only a prima facie showing that Anser 

was subject to personal jurisdiction. Id. at 1017. We 

accept Petzilla’s uncontroverted allegations as true and 

resolve any factual conflicts in its favor. Id.

General personal jurisdiction requires that the defendant have continuous and systematic contacts with the 

forum state, while specific personal jurisdiction can exist 

even if the contacts are not continuous and systematic. 

Id. In actions for declaratory judgment of patent noninfringement and invalidity, specific personal jurisdiction 

can arise from cease-and-desist communications in combination with “additional activities” that “relate in some 

material way to the enforcement or defense of the patent” 

and are purposefully directed at the forum. Id. at 1019–

20. A defendant patentee’s own commercial activities are 

irrelevant to this special test because they are not materially related to patent enforcement or defense. Id. at 

1019.

The district court wrote that Petzilla “appear[ed] to 

agree” that general personal jurisdiction did not extend to 

Anser, and that regardless, Anser’s “isolated and sporadic” contacts with California were insufficient to demonstrate general personal jurisdiction. Petzilla, 2014 WL 

4744434, at *4. The court determined that Anser was not 

subject to specific personal jurisdiction because Anser’s 

sending a cease-and-desist letter to Petzilla was its only 

California activity relating to the enforcement or defense 

of the ’152 patent. 

Case: 15-1104 Document: 60-2 Page: 4 Filed: 07/28/2015
PETZILA, INC. v. ANSER INNOVATION LLC 5

On appeal, Petzilla argues that the court had specific 

personal jurisdiction over Anser based on Anser’s ceaseand-desist letter in combination with Anser’s agreement 

with Tuffy’s Pet Foods, Inc.1 Petzilla contends that the 

Tuffy’s agreement was “an exclusive implied patent 

license (or its functional equivalent),” Appellant’s Br. 17, 

and thus a sufficient “additional activity” because (1) it 

gave Tuffy’s the exclusive right to make and sell treats 

and “treat packs” for use in Anser’s PetChatz products, 

and (2) the treats and treat packs are required for practicing the methods of claims 1, 8, and 11. Claims 1 and 8 

recite “[a] method for communicating with an animal 

comprising . . . a food dispenser,” and claim 11 recites 

“[t]he method of claim 8 further comprising dispensing 

food to the animal.” ’152 patent col.4 l.56–col.5 l.10; col.5 

ll.23–47; col.6 ll.6–7.

We agree with the district court that it lacked specific 

personal jurisdiction over Anser. First, Anser’s sending 

cease-and-desist letters to Petzilla in California is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. See Autogenomics, 

566 F.3d at 1019. Second, Petzilla did not show that 

Anser purposefully directed “additional activities” at 

California that related in some material way to the validity and enforceability of the ’152 patent. See id. at 1020.

Anser’s entering into the Tuffy’s agreement is not 

enough. The agreement did not give Tuffy’s an exclusive 

license to the ’152 patent, obligate Anser to enforce the 

’152 patent, or give Tuffy’s the right to sue others for 

infringement of the ’152 patent. See, e.g., Breckenridge

Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., 444 F.3d 1356, 

1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that exclusively licensing the patent to an entity in the forum state constituted 

1 Petzilla does not appeal the district court’s determination that it did not have general personal jurisdiction 

over Anser.

 

Case: 15-1104 Document: 60-2 Page: 5 Filed: 07/28/2015
6 PETZILA, INC. v. ANSER INNOVATION LLC

sufficient “additional activity” where the entity was given 

the right to sue others for patent infringement); Akro 

Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1995); (holding that exclusively licensing the patent to an entity in 

the forum state constituted sufficient “additional activity” 

where the entity was given the right to sue others for 

patent infringement and the patentee was obligated to 

enforce the patent). Instead, the agreement gave Tuffy’s 

only “a royalty free, nonexclusive limited license” to use 

Anser’s intellectual property “solely in connection with” 

the sale of “treat packs” and contained no provision relating to the enforcement or defense of the ’152 patent 

against third parties. Petzilla, 2014 WL 4744434, at *6.

The agreement also did not give Tuffy’s exclusive distribution or retail rights to a patented product. See, e.g., 

Genetic Implant Sys., Inc. v. Core-Vent Corp., 123 F.3d 

1455, 1458 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that giving exclusive 

distribution and retail rights in the forum state for a 

patented product constituted sufficient “additional activity”). Even if the agreement gave Tuffy’s the exclusive 

right to make and sell treats and “treat packs” for use in 

PetChatz, the treats and treat packs are not patented 

products. The Tuffy’s agreement distinguished “treat 

packs” from “treat pack dispensers,” Petzilla, 2014 WL 

4744434, at *2, which indicates that the treat packs were 

not “food dispenser[s]” as recited in claims 1 and 8. Even 

if the treat packs were “food dispenser[s]” as used in 

claims 1 and 8 and the treats were “food” as used in 

claim 11, Petzilla has not shown that the treats or treat 

packs met any other limitation of these claims. Therefore, 

on this record, the treats and treat packs were not patented products. See Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG 

Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1995). We are not 

persuaded by Petzilla’s other arguments. Because Petzilla has not shown that Anser purposefully directed “additional activities” at California that related in a material 

way to the validity and enforceability of the ’152 patent, 

Case: 15-1104 Document: 60-2 Page: 6 Filed: 07/28/2015
PETZILA, INC. v. ANSER INNOVATION LLC 7

the district court correctly ruled it did not have personal 

jurisdiction over Anser.2

II.

We review a district court’s denial of jurisdictional 

discovery under the law of the regional circuit, here the 

Ninth Circuit, which reviews such denials for abuse of 

discretion. Autogenomics, 566 F.3d at 1021–22 (citing

Digeo, Inc. v. Audible, Inc., 505 F.3d 1362, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 

2007)). Under this standard, we uphold denials “unless 

there is the clearest showing that the denial will result in 

actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining 

litigant.” Digeo, 505 F.3d at 1370.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying-in-part jurisdictional discovery. Petzilla has not 

shown that the denial will cause actual and substantial 

prejudice, for example by showing a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had additional discovery been allowed. Petzilla has not identified 

the additional discovery it believes should have been 

permitted or shown that such discovery would have 

provided any information that it could not have obtained 

from deposing Anser or Anser’s CEO, which was permitted under the discovery order. 

CONCLUSION

Because the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over Anser and did not abuse its discretion by 

2 Petzilla argues for the first time on appeal that 

our decisions on personal jurisdiction in declaratory 

judgment actions were overruled sub silentio by the 

Supreme Court’s decision in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski 

Family Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843 (2014). We reject 

this argument as untimely.

 

Case: 15-1104 Document: 60-2 Page: 7 Filed: 07/28/2015
8 PETZILA, INC. v. ANSER INNOVATION LLC

denying-in-part Petzilla’s request for jurisdictional discovery, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

Costs to Anser. 

Case: 15-1104 Document: 60-2 Page: 8 Filed: 07/28/2015