Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
On December 10, 2018, TCT made a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
On January 14, 2019 Semcon filed its Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss
On February 15, 2019 TCT filed its Reply to Semcon's Response
On February 22, 2019 Semcon filed its Sur-Reply to TCT's Reply
On March 8, 2019 the Court "having considered the Motion and briefing, specifically Plaintiff Semcon IP Inc.’s Response 'request[ing] that it be permitted to conduct jurisdiction-related discovery', the Court hereby ORDERS limited Jurisdictional Discovery"
On May 15, 2019 the Court granted Semcon leave to file a Supplemental Response in Opposition to TCT's Motion to Dismiss
On May 22, 2019 the Court granted TCT leave to file a Supplemental Reply under seal in support of the Motion to Dismiss
Case No. 2:18-cv-00194
Interestingly, Judge Gilstrap denied a similar motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction after ordering limited jurisdictional discovery and conducting and evidentiary hearing. In that case, AGIS Software Development LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. (2:17-cv-00515), LG's motion to dismiss was denied based on the stream of commerce theory of personal jurisdiction. The court reasoned that sales were conducted through an established distribution channel with knowledge, or at least reasonable foreseeability, that the products would end up in Texas. The Federal Circuit subsequently denied LG Electronics Inc’s petition for writ of mandamus from Judge Gilstrap’s decision denying their motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (In re LG Electronics Inc., No 2019-107 (Fed Cir, 24 Jan 2019)).
AGIS was represented by the same team from Brown Rudnick that represents Semcon IP in the pending actions against TCT, Amazon, AsusTek Computer, Kyocera Corporation, Michael Kors, Louis Vuitton and Shenzhen OnePlus.
Comments