IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Hawk Technology Systems, LLC, a 

Florida corporation, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware 

corporation,

Defendant.

C.A. No. 2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM

Hon. Stephen J. Murphy, III

Mag. Mona K. Majzoub

DEFENDANT SKECHERS U.S.A., INC.’S MOTION 

AND BRIEF TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF 

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 1 of 20 Pg ID 22
1

Skechers USA, Inc. hereby moves this Court to dismiss Hawk Technology 

Systems, LLC’s Complaint because Skechers is not subject to specific or general 

personal jurisdiction in Michigan. Skechers is neither incorporated, nor has its 

principal place of business in Michigan. Furthermore, the alleged conduct 

occurred in California, not Michigan. The Complaint should therefore be 

dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 2 of 20 Pg ID 23
BRIEF

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 3 of 20 Pg ID 24
- i -

CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUE PRESENTED

1. Whether the Complaint should be dismissed for lack of personal 

jurisdiction, where the allegedly infringing acts were all conducted in California 

and Defendant Skechers U.S.A., Inc. is not “at home” in Michigan?

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Answers: Yes

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 4 of 20 Pg ID 25
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONCISE STATEMENT OF ISSUE PRESENTED...................................................................... i

CONTROLLING AUTHORITY...................................................................................................iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 2

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW................................................................................................ 4

IV. ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................... 4

A. THIS CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL 

JURISDICTION ..................................................................................................... 4

1. There Is Not Specific Personal Jurisdiction Over Skechers In This 

Case Because The Allegedly Infringing Conduct Did Not Occur In 

Michigan ..................................................................................................... 5

2. There Is Not General Personal Jurisdiction In This Case Because 

Skechers Is Not “At Home” In This Forum................................................ 7

V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 11

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 5 of 20 Pg ID 26
- iii -

CONTROLLING AUTHORITY 

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985)

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)

Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984)

Hildebrand v. Steck Mfg. Co., 279 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

Trusted Integration, Inc. v. U.S., 659 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 6 of 20 Pg ID 27
iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 

No. 1:14-cv-329, 2014 WL 3615382 (N.D. Ohio July 18, 2014)........ 8

Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 

566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................ 4

Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., 

552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................ 7

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 

471 U.S. 462 (1985) ............................................................................. 5

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 

134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) ............................................................... 5, 7, 8, 9

Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 

466 U.S. 408 (1984) ......................................................................... 5, 7

Hildebrand v. Steck Mfg. Co., 

279 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................ 4

In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 

No. 02-md-875, 2014 WL 5394310 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2014)............. 9

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 

326 U.S. 310 (1945) ............................................................................. 5

Med. Solutions, Inc. v. C Change Surgical LLC, 

541 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................ 4

Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 

768 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2014)................................................................ 8

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 7 of 20 Pg ID 28
v

Trusted Integration, Inc. v. U.S., 

659 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................ 4

Walden v. Fiore, 

134 S.Ct. 1115 (2014) ...................................................................... 5, 6

Other Authorities

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)................................................. 1, 10

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 8 of 20 Pg ID 29
1

I. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), Hawk Technology 

systems, LLC’s (“Hawk’s”) patent infringement lawsuit against Skechers U.S.A., 

Inc. (“Skechers”) should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. First, it is 

undisputed that all the allegedly infringing conduct occurred in California, not 

Michigan. Accordingly, specific personal jurisdiction by this Court over Skechers 

does not exist in this case. Second, Skechers is not subject to general personal 

jurisdiction in Michigan because Skechers is not “at home” in Michigan. In 

particular, Skechers is neither incorporated, nor has its principal place of business 

in Michigan. Further, the five retail stores that Skechers operates in this State are 

not an “exceptional circumstance” that justifies treating Skechers as having a 

“surrogate” home in Michigan. 

Given Skechers’ lack of substantial contacts with the State of Michigan, it is 

unclear why Hawk has chosen to sue Skechers in this State, particularly since 

Hawk has initiated four similar patent infringement lawsuits in California against 

other companies.1 What is clear, however, is that since Skechers is not subject to 

specific or general personal jurisdiction in Michigan, Hawk’s Complaint should be 

dismissed under Rule 12(b)(2).

 

1

Each of those four lawsuits was filed in 2014 and alleges infringement of the 

same patent-in-suit asserted here.(see Civil Action Nos. 2:2014-cv-1181; 2:2014-

cv-8443; 2:2014-cv-3879; 5:2014-cv-2217).

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 9 of 20 Pg ID 30
2

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Hawk filed its Complaint against Skechers on November 20, 2014, alleging 

that Skechers infringes United States Patent No. RE43,462 (“the ’462 Patent”), 

which is a reissue of United States Patent No. 5,625,410 (D.I. 1 at ¶ 1). Each of 

the claims of the ’462 Patent identified in Hawk’s Complaint concern a video 

storage and display system, or a method of using the same (see id. at ¶¶ 16-18).

Rather than specify any conduct that has occurred in Michigan, however, the 

information relied on by Hawk shows that the allegedly infringing conduct by 

Skechers has occurred only in California (see D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 19, 25 and Ex. A). In 

particular, Hawk alleges that Exhibit A to its Complaint evidences that Skechers 

“used a video storage and display system” in violation of its patent rights. 

Specifically, Exhibit A to Hawk’s Complaint, a press release from Tyco Security 

Products, and the only evidence relied on by Hawk, provides that Skechers has 

installed an American Dynamics’ video surveillance solution to secure its flagship 

distribution facility in Rancho Belago, California (id. at Ex. A). Further, the press 

release states that “Select Systems Technology, Inc.,” the systems integrator on the 

project, is also based in Torrance, California (id.).2 

 

2 Moreover, while the American Dynamics press release was issued from 

Westford, Massachusetts (id.), American Dynamic’s headquarters is in Boca 

Raton, Florida.

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 10 of 20 Pg ID 31
3

Just as the conduct at issue in this case occurred outside of Michigan, so too 

are the vast majority of Skechers’ business operations conducted outside of the 

State of Michigan. Significantly, Skechers is a Delaware corporation that is 

headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California (Declaration of Hal Randall in 

Support of Defendant Skechers U.S.A., Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of 

Personal Jurisdiction (“Randall Dec.”) at ¶ 4). Skechers does not have a corporate 

office in Michigan (id. at ¶ 5). 

The retail sales-related activities that Skechers does conduct in Michigan are 

no different than (and, depending on the state, substantially less than) its 

corresponding activities in other states. In fact, a small portion (less than 1.5%) of 

Skechers’ U.S. retail sales occurs in Skechers’ five retail stores in the Michigan, 

and an even smaller portion of Skechers’ global sales occurs in Michigan because 

Skechers products are sold throughout the United States and in more than 100 

countries and territories throughout the world (see id. at ¶¶ 10, 12-13). For 

example, as of early 2014, Skechers operated over three hundred retail stores in the 

United States, with over eighty retail locations in California (id. at ¶¶ 9, 11). 

In order to help distribute its products throughout the world, Skechers 

operates two distribution centers: one in California (where the accused technology 

in this case is located), and another in Belgium (id. at ¶ 16). Skechers has no such 

distribution center in Michigan (id.). As of January 31, 2014, Skechers employed 

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 11 of 20 Pg ID 32
4

6,868 persons (id. at ¶ 14). None of Skechers’ corporate officers or directors live 

or work in Michigan, and only a small percentage of its employees work at the five 

retail stores in the State (id. at ¶¶ 5, 15).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Circuit law governs whether personal jurisdiction exists in patent 

cases. Hildebrand v. Steck Mfg. Co., 279 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“We 

apply Federal Circuit law to determine whether the district court properly exercised 

personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in patent infringement cases.”); 

see also Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1016 (Fed. 

Cir. 2009). On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(2), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction 

over the defendant. Trusted Integration, Inc. v. U.S., 659 F.3d 1159, 1163 (Fed. 

Cir. 2011). 

IV. ARGUMENT

A. THIS CASE SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

Personal jurisdiction over a defendant exists if the defendant is amenable to

service of process under the forum state’s long-arm statute, and if the exercise of 

personal jurisdiction would not deny the defendant due process. Med. Solutions, 

Inc. v. C Change Surgical LLC, 541 F.3d 1136, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Due 

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 12 of 20 Pg ID 33
5

process requires an inquiry into whether the facts of the case demonstrate that the 

nonresident defendant possesses such “minimum contacts” with the forum state 

that the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with “traditional notions of fair 

play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 

(1945). In analyzing the due-process limits of personal jurisdiction, courts make a 

distinction between “specific” and “general” jurisdiction. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 

134 S. Ct. 746, 754 (2014). As set forth below, neither specific nor general 

jurisdiction exists over Skechers in Michigan, and thus this case should be 

dismissed.

1. There Is Not Specific Personal Jurisdiction Over 

Skechers In This Case Because The Allegedly 

Infringing Conduct Did Not Occur In Michigan

Specific jurisdiction authorizes a court to exercise “personal jurisdiction 

over a defendant in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts with 

the forum.” Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 

n. 8 (1984). Exercise of specific jurisdiction over a non-resident corporation 

satisfies Due Process when the corporation has purposefully directed its activities 

at the forum state and the “litigation results from alleged injuries that ‘arise out of 

or relate to’ those activities.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-

73 (1985); Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1121 n. 6 (2014) (“Specific or caselinked jurisdiction depends on an affiliatio[n] between the forum and the 

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 13 of 20 Pg ID 34
6

underlying controversy (i.e., an activity or an occurrence that takes place in the 

forum State and is therefore subject to the State's regulation”)) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). “For a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, 

the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the 

forum State.” Walden, 134 S. Ct. at 1121.

Hawk’s unsubstantiated and factually inaccurate allegations fail to identify 

any acts by Skechers within the state of Michigan that relate to the alleged 

infringement of the ’462 Patent, and are thus insufficient to maintain this suit. The 

lone jurisdictional-specific allegation in Hawk’s Complaint provides:

[t]his court has personal jurisdiction over Skechers because Skechers 

(a) operates, conducts, engages in and/or or carries on a business in 

the State of Michigan; (b) committed tortious acts within the State of 

Michigan; and (c) is engaging in substantial and not isolated activity 

within the State of Michigan.

(D.I. 1, at ¶ 7.) Statements (a) and (c) concern only general jurisdiction, and 

therefore are addressed in Section I.B. below. 

Statement (b) is the only allegation that relates to specific jurisdiction, but it 

is not supported by any facts, or even allegations in Hawk’s Complaint. 

Specifically, Hawk alleges that Skechers’ infringes the ’462 Patent by the use of a 

video storage and display system located at Skechers’ distribution facility in 

Rancho Belago, California (D.I. 1, at pp. 5, 8-9). Hawk does not allege that 

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 14 of 20 Pg ID 35
7

Skechers even has an allegedly infringing video storage and display system in 

Michigan. Nor could Hawk, as no such system exists (Randall Dec. at ¶¶ 17-18).

Further, in order to acquire its California-located video surveillance system, 

Skechers, a California-based company, purchased the equipment from a system 

integrator, Select Systems Technology, which is also located in California (id. at 

¶ 19). At no point was any company or person in Michigan involved in the 

purchase, installation, or use of Skechers’ California-located video storage and 

display system (see id. at ¶¶ 17-19). 

In sum, Skechers’ accused video storage and display system has no

connection to Michigan. Accordingly, despite its unsupported allegations to the 

contrary, Hawk cannot carry its burden of showing that specific personal 

jurisdiction exists over Skechers in Michigan with regard to this lawsuit.

2. There Is Not General Personal Jurisdiction In This 

Case Because Skechers Is Not “At Home” In This 

Forum 

General jurisdiction permits a state to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant 

even if the cause of action is wholly unrelated to the defendants’ contacts with the 

state. Helicopteros, 466 U.S. at 414-15. “To establish the minimum contacts 

necessary to establish general personal jurisdiction, plaintiffs bear a higher 

burden.” Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., 552 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008). In particular, for there to be general jurisdiction over a corporate 

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 15 of 20 Pg ID 36
8

defendant, the corporation’s contacts with the forum must be so “continuous and 

systematic,” judged against the corporation's national and global activities, that it is 

“essentially at home” in that state. Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 754, 761–62 & n. 20. “A 

corporation that operates in many places can scarcely be deemed to be at home in 

all of them.” Id. at 762 n. 20. Otherwise, “at home” would be synonymous with 

“doing business,” and thus merely “engag[ing] in a substantial, continuous, and 

systematic course of business” is not sufficient to render a corporation at home in 

that jurisdiction. Id. at 760-62 & n. 20. 

Unless the facts show an “an exceptional case,” a corporation is typically at 

home only where it is incorporated or the location of its principal place of business. 

See id. at 761 & n. 19. Here, it is undisputed that Skechers is incorporated in 

Delaware with a principal place of business in California (D.I. 1 at ¶ 4). Thus, thus 

this must be an exceptional case for there to be general personal jurisdiction in 

Michigan. 

The burden for showing an exceptional case, not surprisingly, is quite high. 

See Monkton Ins. Servs., Ltd. v. Ritter, 768 F.3d 429, 432 (5th Cir. 2014) (it is 

“incredibly difficult to establish general jurisdiction in a forum other than the place 

of incorporation or principal place of business.”). Indeed, in order to find a case 

exceptional, the defendant’s operations in the forum state must be more substantial 

than in any other state, such that the defendant’s forum contacts may substitute for 

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 16 of 20 Pg ID 37
9

its place of incorporation or principal place of business. See Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 

756 n.8, 761 n.19 (holding that a case is exceptional when a corporation’s forum 

contacts are sufficiently substantial so as to constitute a “surrogate . . . place of 

incorporation or head office.”); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Electrolux Home 

Prods., Inc., No. 1:14-cv-329, 2014 WL 3615382, at *4 (N.D. Ohio July 19, 2014); 

In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), No. 02-md-875, 2014 WL 5394310, at 

*3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2014). In Daimler for instance, the Supreme Court held that 

several facilities and a regional office in the forum state, coupled with significant 

sales, was not enough to make a company “essentially at home” in the forum. 

Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 761-62, 766-67. 

Skechers’ contacts in Michigan are significantly less than what the Supreme 

Court found to be insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction in Daimler. 

Skechers does not maintain a corporate office in Michigan, nor do its officers and 

directors live or work in Michigan. Five (or less than 2%) of the over 300 

Skechers’ U.S. retail stores are located in Michigan (Randall Dec. at ¶¶ 9-10). Of 

the nearly 7,000 persons employed by Skechers, only a tiny fraction work in 

Michigan’s five retail stores (id. at ¶¶ 14-15). In order to distribute its products, 

Skechers maintains a distribution center in California, not in Michigan (id. at ¶ 16). 

Collectively, Skechers’ retail store sales in Michigan accounts for less than 1.5% 

of its U.S. retail sales (id. at ¶ 12). 

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 17 of 20 Pg ID 38
10

Hawks only jurisdictional-specific allegations otherwise are that Skechers 

purportedly “operates, conducts, engages in and/or carries on a business in the 

State of Michigan” and “is engaging in substantial and not isolated activity within 

the State of Michigan” (D.I. 1 at ¶ 7). Neither statement, however, applies the 

proper general jurisdiction framework, i.e. whether Skechers limited retail activity 

in the State of Michigan is sufficient for Skechers to be deemed “at home” in this 

State. Accordingly, Hawk’s Complaint falls short of even pleading what is 

necessary to establish general personal jurisdiction (much less proving facts 

sufficient to do so). 

Under any reasonable analysis, Skechers does not have a “surrogate” 

headquarters in Michigan that would render this an exceptional case. Hawk 

therefore cannot carry its burden to show general personal jurisdiction exists over 

Skechers in any state outside of California (its principal place of business) or 

Delaware (where it is incorporated)—much less in Michigan. Because neither 

personal nor general personal jurisdiction exists over Skechers in Michigan, this 

case should be dismissed.

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 18 of 20 Pg ID 39
11

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Complaint should be dismissed against Skechers 

for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.

Dated: December 23, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Thomas W. Cunningham 

Thomas W. Cunningham (P57899)

BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.

1000 Town Center

Twenty-Second Floor

Southfield, MI 48075

Tel: (248) 358-4400

Fax: (248) 358-3351

tcunningham@brookskushman.com

Robert L. Lee

bob.lee@alston.com 

Alston & Bird LLP

1201 West Peachtree Street

Atlanta, GA 30309-3424

Tel. (404) 881-7000

Fax (404) 881-7777

Counsel for Defendant

Skechers U.S.A., Inc.

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 19 of 20 Pg ID 40
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 23, 2014, I electronically filed the 

foregoing papers with the Clerk of the court using the ECF system, which will send 

notification of such filing to all ECF participants.

/s/ Thomas W. Cunningham 

2:14-cv-14445-SJM-MKM Doc # 5 Filed 12/23/14 Pg 20 of 20 Pg ID 41