Patent Approach Adopted for Analyzing Personal Jurisdiction in Non-Infringement Declaratory Judgment Action

The court granted defendants’ alternative request to transfer venue because plaintiff’s claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement did not provide a basis for the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendants, rendering the instant venue improper. “In the context of a patent, a declaratory judgment claim for non-infringement ‘”neither directly arises out of nor relates to the making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing arguably infringing products in the forum, but instead arises out of or relates to the activities of the defendant patentee in enforcing the patent or patents in suit.”‘ . . . [T]his Court finds the reasoning applicable to a declaratory judgment for non-infringement of a copyright. . . . [Plaintiff’s] declaratory judgment claim is based on [the individual defendant’s] assertion in the . . . cease-and-desist letter that [plaintiff] infringed on at least the Works listed in the letter. This letter is the only evidence of [the defendant’s] effort to enforce her copyright protections. Although the letter was mailed to [plaintiff] in Churubusco, Indiana, by [the defendant’s] attorney in Texas, the letter alone is an insufficient contact for personal jurisdiction over [the defendant] on this claim. . . . [U]ntil [the defendant’s] attorney sent the initial cease-and-desist letter . . . there is no evidence of any contact between the parties that directly bore on the infringement of [the defendant’s] intellectual property.”

Want2Scrap, LLC v. Creative Scrap Designs et al, 1-17-cv-00443 (INND 2018-04-09, Order) (Paul R. Cherry)

2018-04-12T12:09:03+00:00 April 12th, 2018|Copyright, Docket Report|