TomTom, Inc. v. Norman IP Holdings, LLC
890 F. Supp. 2d 160
D. Mass.2012Background
- Declaratory-judgment action by TomTom seeking non-infringement of Norman patents.
- Norman sued TomTom in the Eastern District of Texas for patent infringement.
- Norman moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2).
- Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion; TomTom objected.
- Court, reviewing de novo, adopted the magistrate’s recommendation and granted Norman’s motion.
- Key issue is whether Norman has sufficient Massachusetts contacts for jurisdiction under Federal Circuit law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Norman has minimum contacts with Massachusetts | TomTom asserts contacts via enforcement activities and Massachusetts counsel. | Norman has no MA offices or activities; enforcement occurred outside MA. | No sufficient MA contacts under Federal Circuit standard. |
| Whether Norman is subject to general jurisdiction in MA | Past MA counsel and related activities could amount to general jurisdiction. | No continuous/systematic MA presence; general jurisdiction not shown. | Not subject to general jurisdiction. |
| Whether Norman is subject to specific jurisdiction in MA | Norman’s enforcement actions relate to patents and MA activities. | Enforcement outside MA; no MA-directed activities related to the patents in suit. | Not subject to specific jurisdiction. |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery should be permitted | Discovery could uncover additional MA-related contacts. | Plaintiff failed to show colorable case for jurisdiction. | Discovery not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., Ltd., 552 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir.2008) (enforcement activities outside forum do not create jurisdiction in forum)
- Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc., 638 F.3d 785 (Fed.Cir.2011) (enforcement contacts outside forum do not justify jurisdiction; affects specific jurisdiction)
- Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd. v. United States, 274 F.3d 610 (1st Cir.2001) (minimum contacts and relatedness with forum; discovery considerations)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (contract with out-of-state party alone cannot establish minimum contacts)
- LSI Indus. Inc. v. Hubbell Lighting, Inc., 232 F.3d 1369 (Fed.Cir.2000) (outline of general jurisdiction factors and limits)
- Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012 (Fed.Cir.2009) (limits of contracts and licensing to establish jurisdiction)
- Inamed Corp. v. Kuzmak, 249 F.3d 1356 (Fed.Cir.2001) (framework for minimum contacts analysis in patent cases)
- Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., Ltd., 552 F.3d 1324 (Fed.Cir.2008) (enforcement activities outside forum do not create jurisdiction in forum (predecessor/successor concepts))