Parah LLC v. G' Strat
2:13-cv-00756
| D. Utah | Feb 10, 2014Background
- Plaintiffs Parah, LLC and OZONICS, LLC assert patent infringement against Whitetail’r (G’STRAT LLC) based on the sale of Accused Products via the internet and distributors.
- Defendant’s principal place of business is Wisconsin; Utah residents purchased Accused Products through Defendant’s site and HBS’s site.
- Defendant partnered with HBS to advertise and distribute the Accused Products; two Utah sales occurred via HBS and one sale was ordered by Plaintiffs to a Utah address.
- Plaintiffs contend Defendant’s interactive websites directed substantial activities toward Utah; Defendant disputes that the sites are interactive or targeted.
- The court analyzes specific jurisdiction under due process and the Utah long-arm statute, weighing Defendant’s Utah contacts against constitutional requirements.
- The court ultimately denies the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding sufficient minimum contacts and reasonableness under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah has personal jurisdiction over Whitetail’r in this patent case | Whitetail’r’s interactive sites and HBS distribution targeted Utah. | No purposeful targeting or sufficient Utah contacts. | Yes, jurisdiction established. |
| Whether Defendant purposefully directed activities at Utah | Defendant’s site allowed state selection and sales; distribution through HBS targeted Utah. | Interactions were not aimed at Utah; sales via distributors are incidental. | Yes, Defendant purposefully directed activities. |
| Whether the suit arises out of or relates to Defendant’s Utah activities | Sales activity in Utah created infringement-related injuries. | Infringement claims arise from products irrespective of Utah-specific actions. | Arises out of/relates to Utah activities. |
| Whether the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable under due process | Internet-based market presence and burden on Plaintiffs favor Utah jurisdiction. | Litigation burden on Defendant is not undue; internet commerce justifies jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction reasonable under due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (due process minimum contacts; stream of commerce principle)
- Arguello v. Industrial Woodworking Mach. Co., 838 P.2d 1120 (Utah 1992) (minimum contacts analysis for specific jurisdiction)
- SII MegaDiamond, Inc. v. American Superabrasives Corp., 969 P.2d 430 (Utah 1998) (two-prong test for Utah long-arm and due process compatibility)
- OMI Holdings, Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Canada, 149 F.3d 1086 (10th Cir. 1998) ( prima facie jurisdiction showing in absence of evidentiary hearing)
- Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Pedre Promotional Prods., Inc., 395 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (construction of personal jurisdiction for patent cases; burden on plaintiff)
- Wenz v. Memory Crystal, 55 F.3d 1503 (10th Cir. 1995) (analysis of minimum contacts and relatedness in jurisdiction)