Sony Corporation v. Pace PLC, et al., C.A. No. 15-288-SLR, February 12, 2016.
Fallon, M. J. Report and recommendation recommending that defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction be dismissed without prejudice and jurisdictional discovery be allowed.
The accused products are digital and cable and satellite television set top boxes. Defendant parent is an English entity with a Delaware LLP subsidiary located in Florida. The accused products are manufactured outside the U.S. by third parties and then shipped to ports outside of Delaware. Title transfers to the defendant subsidiary outside of Delaware. The subsidiary then sells the products to cable operators and distributers. Plaintiff contends jurisdiction exists under a dual jurisdiction or stream of commerce theory. Courts in this district disagree as to whether the dual jurisdiction theory is supported by the Delaware long-arm statute. Plaintiff has shown defendant’s intent to serve the Delaware market, but fails to show the accused products were actually sold in Delaware. Thus the statutory basis for personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute is not met. Defendant has indicated that it is properly subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida, defeating the claim that personal jurisdiction in Delaware exists under the federal jurisdiction Rule 4(k)(2). Plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations are not frivolous and the magistrate recommends denying the motion to dismiss and allowing jurisdictional discovery.
