Opinion ID: 2826653
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: LG argues that the district court legally erred by failing to consider whether it had personal jurisdiction over LG before granting the preliminary injunction. We agree. Although we subsumed the issue of a district court’s jurisdiction in the likelihood of success prong of the preliminary injunction test in the past, we also explained that “[f]ailing to consider [the district court’s jurisdiction] was legal error.” U.S. Ass’n of Importers & Textiles & Apparel v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce (“USA-ITA”), 413 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This is for good reason. A district court cannot enjoin a party if it does not have jurisdiction over that party. See, e.g., Enterprise Int’l, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d 464, 471 (5th Cir. 1985) (“We hold, therefore, that the district court should not have issued the preliminary injunction against [the defendant] without determining whether it had jurisdiction over the party enjoined.”); cf. Ins. Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 711 n.1 (1982) (Powell, J., concurring) (“A district court must have personal jurisdiction over a party before it can enjoin its actions”). At a minimum, the district court must determine that there is a “substantial probability” that it has jurisdiction over the claim that 6 CELGARD, LLC v. LG CHEM, LTD. requires preliminary injunctive relief. United States v. First Nat’l City Bank, 379 U.S. 378, 390 (1965) (“It is basic to traditional notions of equity that[,] to justify the issuance of a protective temporary injunction[,] there must exist a substantial probability that jurisdiction, judgment, and enforcement will be obtained with respect to the person sought to be affected.” (emphasis added)). In this case, the district court addressed LG’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and Celgard’s motion for a preliminary injunction in the same order. Rather than resolve LG’s motion to dismiss, however, the district court allowed jurisdictional discovery and referred the case to the magistrate judge. Preliminary Injunction Order, 2014 WL 3699999, at –4. In other words, the district court did not determine whether it had personal jurisdiction over LG for the patent infringement claim before it issued the preliminary injunction. Nor did the district court determine whether there was a substantial probability that it had personal jurisdiction over LG for the patent infringement claim. See First Nat’l City Bank, 379 U.S. at 390. Accordingly, because LG contested the district court’s jurisdiction, it was legal error for the district court to issue this injunction without making any findings with respect to its jurisdiction over LG. See USA-ITA, 413 F.3d at 1348. This alone requires that we at least vacate the preliminary injunction. 1 1 After briefing for this case was completed, on May 21, 2015, the district court found that it had personal jurisdiction over LG for all of Celgard’s claims, including the patent infringement claim. Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem, Ltd., No. 3:14-cv-43, 2015 WL 2412467 (W.D.N.C. May 21, 2015). Although Celgard argued at oral argument that we should take judicial notice of this order and reach the merits of the district court’s personal jurisdiction order without further briefing from the parties, we CELGARD, LLC v. LG CHEM, LTD. 7