UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Travel Sentry, Inc.

v. Civil No. 06-cv-118-JD

Opinion No. 2006 DNH 135

David Tropp and Safe Skies, LLC

O R D E R

Travel Sentry, Inc., filed a declaratory judgment action

seeking declarations of invalidity and non-infringement of United

States Patents Nos. 7,021,537 (“‘537 Patent”) and 7,036,728

(“‘728 Patent”). The defendants are David Tropp, who is the

inventor of the ‘537 and the ‘728 Patents, and his company, Safe

Skies, LLC. Tropp and Safe Skies move to dismiss the action for

lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, and Safe Skies

moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Alternatively, the defendants move for a transfer of venue. 

Travel Sentry opposes the defendants’ motions.

David Tropp is the owner and founder of Safe Skies, LLC. He

is also the patentee of the ‘537 and the ‘728 Patents. Tropp

developed a product known as the “Liberty Lock” for luggage. The

Liberty Lock allows an owner to lock and open luggage while also

providing access for baggage screeners employed by the

Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) through universal

Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 47 Filed 12/01/06 Page 1 of 14
2

master keys. Safe Skies and the TSA have a memorandum of

understanding concerning the use of Liberty Locks. Safe Skies

sells its products in the United States through a wholesale

distributor, Travelpro International, Inc.

Travel Sentry developed similar “dual lock” technology for

luggage. Joel Blumenthal is the president of Travel Sentry. 

“Travel Sentry’s business includes the licensing of its travel

lock technology for luggage which uses a dual lock system that

allows access only by the luggage owner and by TSA baggage

screeners through a set of standard, proprietary keys developed

by Travel Sentry for TSA use.” Compl. ¶ 7.

In patent cases, district courts must apply Federal Circuit

law to all issues that pertain to patent law, meaning that “it

bears an essential relationship to matters committed to [the

Federal Circuit’s] exclusive control by statute, or [] it clearly

implicates the jurisprudential responsibilities of this court in

a field within its exclusive jurisdiction.” 02 Micro Int’l Ltd.

v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., --- F.3d ---, 2006 WL 3300458 at

*6 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2006). An issue of subject matter

jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action is decided under

Federal Circuit precedent. See, e.g., Sierra Applied Scis., Inc.

v. Advanced Energy Indus., 363 F.3d 1361, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004);

Gen-Probe Inc. v. Vysis, Inc., 359 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir.

Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 47 Filed 12/01/06 Page 2 of 14
3

2004). Personal jurisdiction is also an issue pertaining to

patent law that is governed by the law of the Federal Circuit. 

Pennington Seed, Inc. v. Produce Exch. No. 299, 457 F.3d 1334,

1338 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The parties agree that the law of the

regional circuit, the First Circuit, governs the venue issue. 

See Braley v. Sportec Prods. co., 2002 WL 1676293 at *5 (D.N.H.

July 16, 2002).

I. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Safe Skies, LLC, moves to dismiss Travel Sentry’s

declaratory judgment action against it for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. In support of the motion, Safe Skies asserts it

lacks standing to sue for patent infringement, and, therefore,

jurisdiction is lacking for Travel Sentry’s claims against it. 

Travel Sentry challenges Safe Skies’ assertion that it lacks

standing and opposes the motion.

A. Timeliness

As an initial matter, Travel Sentry objects that Safe

Skies’s motion is untimely because it was filed after the

deadline for filing motions to dismiss. It is well-established,

however, “that the absence of subject matter jurisdiction can be

raised at any point in the proceedings.” Bennett v. City of

Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 47 Filed 12/01/06 Page 3 of 14
4

Holyoke, 362 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing Kontrick v. Ryan,

540 U.S. 443, 445 (2004)); Fanning, Phillips, & Molnar v. West,

160 F.3d 717, 720 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore Safe Skies’s

motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not

untimely.

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) governs a motion to

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. “If the Rule

12(b)(1) motion denies or controverts the pleader’s allegations

of jurisdiction, [] the movant is deemed to be challenging the

factual basis for the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” 

Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Watkins, 11 F.3d 1573, 1583 (Fed. Cir.

1993). In considering such a motion, “only uncontroverted

factual allegations are accepted as true for purposes of the

motion . . . [and] [a]ll other facts underlying the controverted

jurisdictional allegations are in dispute and are subject to

factfinding by the district court.” Id. Therefore, the court

may consider extrinsic evidence including affidavits and

deposition testimony. Id.

The declaratory judgment statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, requires

that an “actual controversy” exist as a jurisdictional basis for

the action. See Microchip Tech. Inc. v. Chamberlain Group, Inc.,

Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 47 Filed 12/01/06 Page 4 of 14
5

441 F.3d 936, 942 (Fed. Cir. 2006). A plaintiff seeking a

declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement and invalidity

must have a reasonable apprehension of suit for infringement by

the defendant to satisfy the “actual controversy” requirement. 

MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 427 F.3d 958, 968-70 (Fed.

Cir. 2005); cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 1329 (U.S. 2006). “A party

seeking a declaratory judgment bears the burden of establishing

the existence of an actual controversy.” Fort James Corp. v.

Solo Cup Co., 412 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2005); cert. denied,

126 S. Ct. 1768 (U.S. 2006). 

The Patent Act of 1952 provides a remedy to a patentee,

which includes all successors in title to the patentee, by civil

action for infringement. Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Genetics Inst.,

Inc., 52 F.3d 1026, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing 35 U.S.C. §§

281 & 100(d)). Only the patentee and successors in title to the

patentee have standing to sue for infringement. See, e.g.,

Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2006);

Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Miracle Optics, Inc., 434 F.3d 1336, 1339-

40 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Successors in title who may sue for

infringement are limited to those with ownership rights to the

patent such as assignees and exclusive licensees of the patent at

issue. See, e.g., Ortho, 52 F.3d at 1031. When a defendant is

neither the patentee nor a successor in interest and, therefore,

Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 47 Filed 12/01/06 Page 5 of 14
6

cannot sue for infringement, no reasonable apprehension of suit

exists as to that defendant. Fina Research, S.A. v. Baroid Ltd.,

141 F.3d 1479, 1480-81 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Orion Elec., Ltd. v.

Funai Elec. Co., Ltd., 2002 WL 377541 at *8 (S.D.N.Y. March 11,

2002).

In support of the motion to dismiss, Safe Skies submits the

declaration of its owner and president, David Tropp, who states,

under penalty of perjury, that he is “the inventor and owner of

United States Patent Nos. 7,021,537 and 7,036,728 (‘the patentsin-suit’).” Tropp further states that he has “not assigned or

granted any exclusive licenses on those patents.” Tropp

submitted a second declaration in support of Safe Skies’s reply

in which he repeats that he is the inventor and owner of the ‘537

and the ‘728 Patents. He adds that he has prosecuted those

patents and has paid all of the expenses associated with the

prosecution and maintenance of the patents in his individual

capacity, distinct from his capacity as president of Safe Skies.

 In response, Travel Sentry characterizes Tropp’s statements

as a “bald representation” about the ownership of the patents-insuit and argues that further inquiry is required in light of Safe

Skies’s advertisements that it is the patent holder. Travel

Sentry cites the following parts of Safe Skies’s website to show

that it advertises it owns the ‘537 and the ‘728 Patents,

Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 47 Filed 12/01/06 Page 6 of 14
7

contrary to Tropp’s statements: (1) “The valuable technology

behind the TSA Lock is proprietary to Safe Skies TSA Locks,” and

(2) “Liberty Lock is a Registered Trademark of Safe Skies LLC,

protected by Patents 7,021,537 and 7,036,728 with other Worldwide

Patents Pending.” Travel Sentry also cites a page on the website

that displays the cover page of the ‘537 Patent with the Safe

Skies’s logo replacing the inventor’s name. That page is

accessed through a link labeled “TSA Luggage Lock Patent.” 

Further, Travel Sentry points out that Tropp himself

instructed his marketing firm to use the statement “‘Safe Skies

TSA Luggage Locks is the patent holder for the TSA Luggage

Lock.’” Opp. at 3. Safe Skies acknowledges that language but

notes that the advertising says that Safe Skies’s Locks, rather

than Safe Skies, LLC, is the patent holder. Safe Skies also

insists that the cited statement is inaccurate because Tropp is

the patent holder. The misstatement and any confusion it might

cause, Safe Skies contends, do not show that it owns the patents

or holds an exclusive license.

When the cited language is read carefully in context, Safe

Skies does not claim ownership of the patents in its advertising. 

Instead, the advertising conveys the message that the technology

of the luggage lock sold by Safe Skies is protected by patents. 

The advertising does not attempt to describe the legal status of

Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 47 Filed 12/01/06 Page 7 of 14
1Safe Skies also accused Travel Sentry of failing to seek

discovery about an assignment or an exclusive license because it

knew that “such discovery would prove fruitless.” Reply at 1. 

Travel Sentry moved for leave to file a surreply to counter that

accusation, which is granted. In its surreply, Travel Sentry

quoted its request for production seeking all documents

pertaining to ownership and rights to use the patents in suit. 

Travel Sentry asserts that “Safe Skies and Tropp have dragged

their feet, made groundless motions to dismiss and for a

protective order, and are whining about Travel Sentry’s

corrections of Defendants’ misstatements through additional

briefing on Defendants’ motions.” Surreply at 2. Despite that

harsh language, which does nothing to advance a resolution of the

issues in this case, Travel Sentry has not made a persuasive

argument that its discovery request would be likely to produce

information that would contradict Tropp’s declaration.

8

the patentee and any successor in title. Therefore, the cited

advertising does not provide a reasonable basis to doubt the

veracity or accuracy of Tropp’s declaration that he is the

patentee and has not assigned or licensed the patents to Safe

Skies, making additional inquiry inappropriate.1 Cf. Orion Elec.

Co. v. Funai Elec. Co., 2001 WL 1506009 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26,

2001) (allowing further inquiry into license given to defendant

despite affidavit describing license as non-exclusive). 

Travel Sentry notes the close relationship between Tropp and

his company and argues that Safe Skies might be permitted to sue

as a “sole licensee.” Travel Sentry also argues that because of

that relationship, Safe Skies might join Tropp in a suit against

Travel Sentry. The Federal Circuit has made plain that an

Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 47 Filed 12/01/06 Page 8 of 14
2To the extent Travel Sentry may have intended to argue that

Safe Skies and Tropp are a single entity, despite Safe Skies’s

9

exclusive license is necessary to confer standing to sue for

infringement, negating Travel Sentry’s “sole licensee” and

joinder theories. See, e.g., Sicom Sys., Ltd. v. Agilent Techs.,

Inc., 427 F.3d 971, 976 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

As is stated above, Travel Sentry bears the burden of

showing that subject matter jurisdiction exists to maintain its

declaratory judgment action against Safe Skies. In the absence

of persuasive evidence to the contrary, Tropp’s declarations

establish that he is the patentee of the ‘537 Patent and the ‘728

Patent and that he has not assigned the patents or granted an

exclusive license to Safe Skies. As a result, Safe Skies lacks

standing to sue Travel Sentry, or anyone else, for infringement. 

Therefore, subject matter jurisdiction is lacking as to the

declaratory judgment action against Safe Skies.

II. Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Both Safe Skies and David Tropp moved to dismiss the action

on the ground that personal jurisdiction is lacking as to each of

them. Because the action against Safe Skies is dismissed for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the issue of personal

jurisdiction over Safe Skies is moot.2 Therefore, the court

Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 47 Filed 12/01/06 Page 9 of 14
status as a limited liability corporation, that matter has not

been sufficiently raised or developed to be considered.

10

considers the motion to dismiss only to determine whether

personal jurisdiction exists as to Tropp.

Under the law of the Federal Circuit, personal jurisdiction

over a defendant exists in a patent case if the forum state’s

long arm statute would authorize jurisdiction. Deprenyl Animal

Health, Inc. v. Univ. of Toronto Innovations Found., 297 F.3d

1343, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “The New Hampshire Supreme Court

has interpreted the New Hampshire long-arm statute as affording

jurisdiction over foreign defendants to the full extent that the

statutory language and due process will allow.” N. Laminate

Sales, Inc. v. Davis, 403 F.3d 14, 24 (1st Cir. 2005) (internal

quotation marks omitted). The long-arm statute, New Hampshire

Revised Statutes Annotated (“RSA”) § 510:4(I), provides: 

Any person who is not an inhabitant of this state and

who, in person or through an agent, transacts any

business within this state, commits a tortious act

within this state, or has the ownership, use, or

possession of any real or personal property situated in

this state submits himself, or his personal

representative, to the jurisdiction of the courts of

this state as to any cause of action arising from or

growing out of the acts enumerated above.

If those requirements are satisfied, the court then considers

whether the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with due

process, under the Fifth Amendment, measured by whether the

Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 47 Filed 12/01/06 Page 10 of 14
3Instead, both parties mistakenly relied on a case from this

district interpreting New Hampshire’s long-arm statutes for

foreign corporations without realizing that a different New

Hampshire statute governs personal jurisdiction as to

individuals. See McClary v. Erie Engine & Mfg. Co., 856 F. Supp.

52, 55 (D.N.H. 1994).

11

defendant has had minimum contacts with the forum and whether the

exercise of jurisdiction would “violate fair play and substantial

justice.” N. Laminate, 297 F.3d at 1350-51. When personal

jurisdiction is challenged, the plaintiff bears the burden of

showing that the requirements for personal jurisdiction are met. 

N. Laminate Sales, Inc. v. Davis, 403 F.3d 14, 21 (1st Cir.

2005); Pieczenik v. Dyax Corp., 265 F.3d 1329, 1334 (Fed. Cir.

2001). If that burden is met, the defendant bears the burden of

presenting “a ‘compelling case’ that the exercise of jurisdiction

over it would offend principles of fair play and substantial

justice.” Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.,

444 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Neither Tropp nor Travel Sentry addressed the requirements

of RSA 510:5(I).3 Therefore, the court will consider whether the

exercise of jurisdiction would comport with due process, which is

the only issue the parties address.

The minimum contacts necessary to support due process are

evaluated under two different theories. “General jurisdiction

arises when a defendant maintains continuous and systematic

Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 47 Filed 12/01/06 Page 11 of 14
12

contacts with the forum state even when the cause of action has

no relation to those contacts.” Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Pedre

Promotional Prods., Inc., 395 F.3d 1275, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Specific jurisdiction exists when the cause of action arises from

or is related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state,

even if those contacts were isolated or sporadic. Id.

 Travel Sentry does not attempt to prove general

jurisdiction. To show that specific jurisdiction exists, Travel

Sentry must establish that Tropp purposefully directed his

activities at New Hampshire residents and that its cause of

action arises out of or relates to Tropp’s contacts with New

Hampshire. Deprenyl, 297 F.3d at 1351. 

Tropp submitted an affidavit in which he states that he does

not conduct business in New Hampshire, has never visited the

state, owns no property here, has no financial accounts here, and

does not have a registered agent, an address, or a telephone

here. The only relevant action taken by Tropp, individually,

appears to be that in November of 2003 he sent cease and desist

letters to Travel Sentry in Washington, D.C., and Florida and to

its customers, one of whom, Brookstone, was in New Hampshire. 

Sometime in 2004, Tropp also contacted Brookstone’s CEO in New

Hampshire to accuse Travel Sentry of misappropriating his idea

Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 47 Filed 12/01/06 Page 12 of 14
13

for the double access lock. The other activities Travel Sentry

cites were conducted by Safe Skies.

The Federal Circuit holds “that a patent owner may, without

more, send cease and desist letters to a suspected infringer, or

its customers, without being subjected to personal jurisdiction

in the suspected infringer’s home state.” Breckenridge, 444 F.3d

at 1362. Instead, personal jurisdiction must be founded on

additional contacts or continuing obligations, such as a license

agreement, along with the cease and desist letters. Id. at 1363-

65 (discussing cases). Tropp denies any other contact with New

Hampshire. Travel Sentry focuses on Safe Skies’s contacts with

New Hampshire, which, based on the record presented here, are not

attributable to Tropp. 

Therefore, Travel Sentry has not carried its burden of

showing that Tropp had contacts with New Hampshire that would

support exercising personal jurisdiction over him here. Because

the claims against Tropp are dismissed for lack of personal

jurisdiction, the court does not address the issue of venue.

Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 47 Filed 12/01/06 Page 13 of 14
14

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion for leave

to file a surreply (document no. 43) is granted. The defendants’

motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

(document no. 33) and to dismiss for lack of personal

jurisdiction (document no. 13) are also granted.

Therefore, the claims against Safe Skies are dismissed for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The claims against David

Tropp are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The clerk

of court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

December 1, 2006

cc: Richard H. An, Esquire

Peter G. Callaghan, Esquire

Christopher Cole, Esquire

Joseph Diamante, Esquire

William L. Prickett, Esquire

Gianni P. Servodidio, Esquire

Heidsha Sheldon, Esquire

Kenneth L. Stein, Esquire 

Case 1:06-cv-00118-JD Document 47 Filed 12/01/06 Page 14 of 14