Aftg-Tg, LLC v. Nuvoton Technology Corp.
689 F.3d 1358
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- AFTG and Adams sue in the District of Wyoming, naming Pegatron, PTS, and Unihan in one action and ASUSTeK/ASUS in the other for patent infringement (and trade secrets in the former).
- Both complaints assert the same infringement theories: manufacturing, use, testing, and importation of accused products directly infringe patents and defendants induce or contribute to infringement; stream-of-commerce theory is invoked for Wyoming jurisdiction.
- Defendants move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court, without an evidentiary hearing, evaluates a prima facie jurisdictional showing.
- Wyoming long-arm statute is read to reach the full extent of due process; general jurisdiction is not at issue; the focus is on specific jurisdiction.
- The district court finds the stream-of-commerce theory speculative, the Wyoming contacts insufficient, and the trade-secret claim too conclusory to establish jurisdiction; ASUSTeK/ASUS shipments are too isolated and not directed at Wyoming to justify jurisdiction.
- The court affirms dismissal, applying Beverly Hills Fan’s stream-of-commerce framework and McIntyre’s narrow outcome, and notes the decision does not settle the stream-of-commerce theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there sufficient Wyoming jurisdiction under stream-of-commerce? | AFTG asserts defendants placed products into stream of commerce targeting Wyoming. | Contacts are sporadic or not purposefully directed; no Wyoming-related infringement link. | No; insufficient contacts to support jurisdiction. |
| What standard governs stream-of-commerce in these cases? | McIntyre changes the analysis in favor of a broader approach. | McIntyre leaves the framework unsettled; no single standard. | Beverly Hills Fan framework controls; no jurisdiction under any articulation. |
| Do drop shipments by ASUS/ASUSTeK create personal jurisdiction in Wyoming? | Drop shipments show purposeful direction into Wyoming. | shipments are initiated by third parties, not targeted at Wyoming or infringing activity. | No; insufficient purposeful direction or link to infringement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987) (stream-of-commerce theory split; no majority test.)
- McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (plurality declined to resolve test; narrowing framework discussed.)
- Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Roy, 21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (static stream-of-commerce approach; facts sufficient under multiple theories.)
- Viam Corp. v. Iowa Export-Import Trading Co., 84 F.3d 424 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (recognizes case-by-case stream-of-commerce analysis.)
- Commissariat A L’Energie Atomique v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp., 395 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (jurisdictional analysis balanced across tests; discovery noted.)
- Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten International Co., 552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (declaratory actions require relation between contact and issues.)
- LSi Indus. v. Hubbell Lighting, Inc., 232 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction.)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment standard.)
- McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220 (1957) (premises of minimum contacts; single contract case cited.)