Hill-Rom Services Incorporated v. Convergence Systems Limited, 2:19-cv-02223

Background

Plaintiff Hill‑Rom Services Inc. (Indiana) alleges Convergence Systems Ltd. (Hong Kong) and Convergence member Jerry Garrett (Hong Kong) misappropriated trade secrets and breached an implied confidentiality contract after working on a moisture-detection Project for Helvetia Wireless (Helvetia), an Arizona LLC.
Convergence and Helvetia executed an NDA (Helvetia signed; Hill‑Rom did not) that provides confidential information remains the discloser’s property, specifies Arizona law, and designates Arizona arbitration for NDA disputes.
Convergence made eight Project‑related shipments to Helvetia’s Arizona office and had repeated communications; Garrett attended an Arizona Project meeting where Hill‑Rom alleges confidential information was disclosed.
Convergence later obtained U.S. Patent No. 10,134,489 listing Garrett as an inventor and Convergence as assignee; Hill‑Rom alleges the patent used its trade secrets.
Convergence and Garrett moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; Hill‑Rom sought jurisdictional discovery and a protective order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Personal jurisdiction over Convergence	Convergence purposefully availed itself of Arizona via NDA (Arizona law/venue), ongoing communications, shipments, and attendance at Arizona meeting where secrets were disclosed; claims arise from those contacts.	Convergence argued contacts (calls, one meeting, some shipments) insufficient for minimum contacts; choice‑of‑law clause alone cannot confer jurisdiction.	Denied: Convergence has sufficient minimum contacts and claims arise from those contacts; exercising jurisdiction is reasonable.
Personal jurisdiction over Garrett (individual)	Garrett directly learned/misappropriated Hill‑Rom’s trade secrets at the Arizona meeting; he cannot hide behind corporate shield.	Garrett argued his Arizona contacts were only in corporate capacity and therefore insufficient for personal jurisdiction.	Granted: Garrett’s only Arizona contacts were in his corporate role; plaintiff failed to show Garrett purposefully directed conduct at Arizona. Plaintiff may amend.
Venue	Hill‑Rom relies on jurisdictional nexus and statutory venue; NDA selects Arizona venue for NDA disputes.	Defendants moved to dismiss as improper venue.	Denied as to Convergence (venue proper because personal jurisdiction exists). Garrett’s venue motion moot due to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional discovery / protective order	Hill‑Rom sought 90 days of jurisdictional discovery; moved for protective order.	Defendants opposed discovery if motions denied; conditional consent to meet and confer on protective order.	Jurisdictional discovery denied as moot (Convergence jurisdiction found). Defendants must state any remaining opposition to protective order within 14 days.

Key Cases Cited

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts test for due process)
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general vs. specific jurisdiction)
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (forum‑selection clauses and purposeful availment relevance)
Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (purposeful‑direction test elements)
Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064 (three‑part specific jurisdiction framework)
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (purposeful availment vs. direction; prima facie standard)
Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206 (limited trips to forum may be insufficient alone for jurisdiction)
Terracom v. Valley Nat. Bank, 49 F.3d 555 ("but for" test for causation in specific jurisdiction)
Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (plaintiff’s burden to make prima facie showing of jurisdiction)