Pervasive Software, Inc. v. Lexware GMBH & Co. KG
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14943
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Pervasive sued Lexware in Texas federal court for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and conversion; Lexware is a German company with no Texas office.
- DSLA (1994) between Pervasive and Lexware in Germany included a Texas choice-of-law clause but no Texas physical presence.
- EMPA (1999–2000) in Germany covered PSQL products; Addendum 1 and Addendum 2 governed separate aspects and did not amend the DSLA.
- Lexware purchased Btrieve in Germany from SOS; DSLA activation occurred in Germany and involved no Texas negotiations.
- Lexware does not maintain offices, assets, or agents in Texas; its only Texas-related activity involved a German-language website with some Texas orders.
- District court granted Lexware’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Pervasive appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Texas has specific jurisdiction over Lexware for contract claims | Pervasive argues DSLA/EMPA create Texas contacts | Lexware contends no purposeful availment in Texas | No specific jurisdiction over Lexware for contract claims |
| Whether Texas has specific jurisdiction over Lexware for conversion | Conversion occurred via Texas-based license control | Conversion occurred in Germany, not Texas | No specific jurisdiction for conversion |
| Whether Texas has general jurisdiction over Lexware | Lexware’s forum-related contacts show home-like presence | Lexware lacked continuous/systematic Texas ties | No general jurisdiction over Lexware |
| Whether internet sales to Texas establish sufficient forum contacts | Texas customers’ purchases create contacts | Online sales are insufficient without purposeful targeting | No jurisdiction based on internet sales |
| Whether district court properly denied leave to amend | Amendment could cure jurisdiction defects | Amendment would be futile given lack of contacts | Court did not abuse discretion; amendment denied for futility |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court 1945) (establishes minimum contacts for jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (Supreme Court 1985) (purposeful availment; long-term forum relations)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (Supreme Court 1980) (foreseeability and due process limits on jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (Supreme Court 2011) (general jurisdiction requires home-like continuous ties)
- Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court 1958) (purposeful availment requirement)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (Supreme Court 1984) (limits of jurisdiction with respect to out-of-state purchases and activities)