Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BioMerieux, S.A. v. Hologic Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

September 26, 2018

BIOMERIEUX, S.A. and BIOMERIEUX, INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
HOLOGIC, INC., GRIFOLS S.A., and GRIFOLS DIAGNOSTIC SOLUTIONS INC., Defendants,

          Daniel M. Silver, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP, Wilmington, DE

          Paul B. Gaffney, Stanley E. Fisher, Charles L. McCloud, and Shaun P. Mahaffy, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, DC Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Karen L. Pascale and Pilar G. Kraman, YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP, Wilmington, DE

          Matthew M. Wolf, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Washington, DC

          David K. Barr and Kyle D. Gooch, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, New York, NY

          Jennifer A. Sklenar, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Los Angeles, CA Attorneys for Defendants

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          STARK, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiffs bioMerieux, S.A. and bioMerieux, Inc. ("Plaintiffs" or "bioMerieux") filed this patent infringement action against Defendants Hologic, Inc. ("Hologic"), Grifols, S.A. ("GSA"), and GSA's wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary, Grifols Diagnostic Solutions, Inc. ("GDS") (collectively "Defendants"). (D.I. 1) ("Complaint" or "Compl") The Complaint alleges direct and indirect infringement. (Id.) Defendant GSA moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). (D.I. 70)[1] GSA contends it is a Spanish Corporation that lacks sufficient contacts with Delaware or the United States. (D.I. 70) Plaintiffs request that the motion be denied or, in the alternative, that they be granted an opportunity to take jurisdictional discovery. (See D.I. 68) The Court will deny GSA's motion to dismiss and accordingly deny Plaintiffs motion for jurisdictional discovery.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs filed this action in the Middle District of North Carolina on February 3, 2017. (Compl.) The parties stipulated to the transfer of the action to this District on January 3, 2018. (D.I. 57)

         In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that three GDS and GSA Procleix®-branded tests (the "Accused Products") infringe two U.S. patents owned by bioMerieux. (Compl. at ¶¶ 29-30, 35, 38) Moving Defendant GSA is a Spanish corporation with a principal place of business in Barcelona, Spain. (Id. at ¶ 6) GSA has submitted declarations that, it contends, conclusively prove it has no contacts with the United States. (D.I. 73 at 1) bioMerieux points to public documents that it believes show the opposite. (D.I. 76 at 1)

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a party may move to dismiss a case based on the court's lack of personal jurisdiction over that party. Determining the existence of personal jurisdiction requires a two-part analysis - one statutory and one constitutional. First, the court analyzes the long-arm statute of the state in which the court is located.[3] See IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254, 259 (3d Cir. 1998). Next, the court must determine whether exercising jurisdiction over the defendant in that state comports with the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. See Id. Due process is satisfied if the court finds the existence of "minimum contacts" between the non-resident defendant and the forum state, "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted).[4]

         When a defendant moves to dismiss a lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing the basis for jurisdiction. See Power Integrations, Inc. v. BCD Semiconductor,547 F.Supp.2d 365, 369 (D. Del. 2008). If no evidentiary hearing has been held, a plaintiff "need only establish a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction." O 'Connor v. Sandy Lane Hotel Co.,496 F.3d 312, 316 (3d Cir. 2007). A plaintiff "presents a prima facie case for the exercise of personal jurisdiction by establishing with reasonable particularity sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state." Mellon Bank (E) PSFS, Nat 7 Ass 'n v. Farino,960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir. 1992). On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.