Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. Asus Computer International
70 F. Supp. 3d 654
D. Del.2014Background
- GPH sued ASUS California, ASUS Singapore, and ASUS Taiwan in 2012 for patent infringement (the '119, '145, and '158 patents) and moved to dismiss or transfer.
- In 2013, GPH filed a second action against ASUS California, ASUS Taiwan, and ASUS Singapore asserting the '327 and '881 patents in Delaware.
- The court analyzes personal jurisdiction under Delaware’s long-arm statute and due process for the Foreign Defendants, who do not target Delaware directly but ship products into the U.S. through ASUS California.
- Delaware long-arm § 3104(c) is interpreted to allow a ‘dual jurisdiction’/stream-of-commerce theory to reach the forum when there are substantial Delaware-market indicia and injuries arising therefrom.
- The court adopts the stream-of-commerce approach to personal jurisdiction, finding evidence of deliberate U.S. and Delaware market presence via sales to ASUS California and subsequent resellers (e.g., Best Buy) with Delaware outlets.
- The court notes the need for pre-filing Delaware sales evidence to sustain jurisdiction as the case proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Delaware’s long-arm supports dual jurisdiction. | GPH argues (dual § 3104(c)(1)(4)) can reach the Foreign Defendants. | ASUS argues against dual jurisdiction under Delaware law. | Delaware stream-of-commerce theory supported; dual jurisdiction recognized. |
| Whether the stream-of-commerce analysis satisfies due process. | GPH contends defendants purposefully availed Delaware market. | ASUS contends no purposeful targeting of Delaware required for due process. | O’Connor test satisfied; purposeful shipping via established channels supports due process. |
| Whether the action arises from the defendants’ forum-related acts. | GPH asserts pre-filing acts (availability through Best Buy, Delaware sales) are linked to claims. | ASUS argues no pre-filing Delaware acts; only post-filing knowledge. | Arising-from satisfied because acts set in motion events forming the basis of the claim; will reassess as case progresses. |
| Whether the court has specific vs general jurisdiction over the Foreign Defendants. | GPH relies on stream-of-commerce to establish jurisdiction. | ASUS challenges the scope of personal jurisdiction under the long-arm. | Court concludes jurisdiction exists under the Delaware long-arm through dual/stream-of-commerce theory. |
Key Cases Cited
- LaNuova, D & B, S.p.A v. Bowe Co., 513 A.2d 764 (Del. 1986) (broadly construes long-arm to maximum extent under due process)
- Boone v. Oy Partek Ab, 724 A.2d 1150 (Del. Super. 1997) (dual jurisdiction concept; later upheld on appeal)
- Wright v. American Home Products Corp., 768 A.2d 518 (Del. Super. 2000) (discusses stream-of-commerce and Delaware long-arm)
- Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (recognizes stream-of-commerce sufficiency under either view)
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (discusses minimum contacts and purposeful availment)
- AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp., 689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (applies Beverly Hills Fan stream-of-commerce precedent)
- Round Rock Research LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., 967 F. Supp. 2d 969 (D. Del. 2013) (discusses limits of dual jurisdiction theory)
- Intel Corp. v. Silicon Storage Tech., Inc., 20 F. Supp. 2d 690 (D. Del. 1998) (arising-from analysis in Delaware jurisdiction)