Robert Bosch LLC v. Alberee Products, Inc.
70 F. Supp. 3d 665
D. Del.2014Background
- Bosch owns numerous patents relating to beam wiper blade technology and asserts direct and indirect infringement claims against API Korea, Alberee, and Saver.
- Saver and Alberee are Maryland entities; API is a Korea-based entity, all involved in manufacturing, distributing, or selling windshield wiper blades in the United States.
- Bosch alleges Saver sells the accused Goodyear Assurance wiper blades nationwide via Costco, with Delaware having sales through Costco locations, including Newark.
- Alberee and Saver are alleged to operate in close corporate proximity, with overlapping leadership and branding, and co-inventors on related Korean and U.S. patent activity.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2); Bosch sought jurisdictional discovery regarding API.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Delaware’s long-arm statute supports jurisdiction under dual jurisdiction/stream-of-commerce. | Bosch contends Saver (and potentially Alberee) initiate and target the Delaware market via Costco, satisfying (c)(1) and (c)(4). | Defendants argue lack of direct Delaware presence and insufficient ties to Delaware under the statute. | Delaware long-arm supports dual jurisdiction for Saver; API not shown at this stage. |
| Whether due process is satisfied for Saver under the stream-of-commerce theory. | Saver’s shipments into Delaware via established channels show purposeful direction to the forum. | Defendant argues no targeted conduct in Delaware and no purposeful availment. | Due Process satisfied for Saver under the stream-of-commerce theory. |
| Whether Alberee is subject to jurisdiction via agency or dual jurisdiction. | Albert Lee’s roles in both Alberee and Saver support an agency theory; marketing to Delaware via distribution channels suggests Delaware targeting. | No sufficient agency link shown between Alberee and Saver; or insufficient dual jurisdiction showing. | Alberee subject to jurisdiction; denial of its dismissal motion. |
| Whether API is subject to jurisdiction under Delaware law or Rule 4(k)(2). | API supplies components and has global distribution; Rule 4(k)(2) may apply given United States-wide contacts. | API lacks Delaware contacts and has only component-level involvement; Rule 4(k)(2) may not apply. | Delaware long-arm lacks sufficient basis for API at this stage; jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- LaNuova D & B, S.p.A. v. Bowe Co., 513 A.2d 764 (Del. 1986) (broadly construed long-arm reaches maximum under due process)
- Boone v. Oy Partek Ab, 724 A.2d 1150 (Del. Super. 1997) (dual jurisdiction concept; general contacts plus injury arising from product)
- Wright v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 768 A.2d 518 (Del. Super. 2000) (stream-of-commerce theory; Delaware long-arm application)
- Power Integrations, Inc. v. BCD Semiconductor, 547 F. Supp. 2d 365 (D. Del. 2008) (dual jurisdiction framework; partial satisfaction suffices)
- Belden Techs., Inc. v. LS Corp., 829 F. Supp. 2d 260 (D. Del. 2010) (intent to serve Delaware market; four-factor agency-like analysis)
- Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (stream-of-commerce sufficiency based on ongoing shipments and distribution)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (U.S. 1987) (stream-of-commerce requires purposeful direction; mere awareness inadequate)
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (U.S. 2011) (stream-of-commerce framework; nuance in minimum contacts)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (minimum contacts and foreseeability in jurisdiction)