M2M Solutions LLC v. Simcom Wireless Solutions Co.
935 F. Supp. 2d 740
D. Del.2013Background
- M2M Solutions sues Micron Electronics LLC for infringement of U.S. Patents 7,583,197 and 8,094,010.
- Micron moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient service, and failure to state a claim, and seeks jurisdictional discovery.
- Micron is a Florida LLC with US locations in Delray Beach, FL, and Peoria, IL; it has no Delaware physical presence, employees, or third‑party distribution in Delaware.
- Micron operates a website accessible to Delaware residents, markets itself as a global distributor, and lists national customers but does not provide online ordering.
- Micron declares it has never sold to Delaware customers and has no knowledge of accused products entering Delaware; M2M provides no contradicting evidence.
- The court analyzes Delaware long‑arm jurisdiction and due process, and ultimately grants Micron’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, denying jurisdictional discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Micron. | M2M relies on Micron’s nationwide web‑presence to imply Delaware contacts. | Micron has no Delaware sales, no Delaware contacts, and no knowledge of products in Delaware. | No personal jurisdiction; M2M fails prima facie to show Delaware contacts. |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery should be allowed. | Discovery would clarify Micron's Delaware contacts and stream of commerce. | Record shows no Delaware contacts; discovery unnecessary. | Denied jurisdictional discovery. |
| Whether Micron’s website constitutes a basis for jurisdiction under Delaware long‑arm. | Website expressions of intent to serve North America imply Delaware harm. | Website is passive and not an offer or direct sale to Delaware residents. | Website alone does not establish jurisdiction. |
| Whether the “stream of commerce” theory supports jurisdiction. | Micron’s relationships with national companies imply Delaware market entry. | There is no evidence any Micron product entered Delaware; theory speculative. | Not established; stream of commerce theory not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trintec Industries, Inc. v. Pedre Promotional Products, Inc., 395 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (jurisdictional discovery not mandated absent unknowns about forum activity)
- Commissariat A L’Energie Atomique v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, 395 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (stream of commerce inquiry; need for robust record)
- AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp., 689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (prima facie jurisdiction standard; discovery when questions remain)
- Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Technology Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (uncontroverted facts accepted; lack of contacts undermines jurisdiction)
- Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) (interactive website relevance to jurisdiction; site here is passive)