throbber
Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 36 Filed 05/17/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1300
`Case 1:17-cv-00868—CFC-SRF Document 36 Filed 05/17/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1300
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`UNIVERSITY OF
`
`:
`
`MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL :
`
`SCHOOL and CARMEL
`
`LABORATORIES, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`-
`
`2
`
`L’OREAL SA. and
`L’OREAL USA, INC.,
`
`Civil Action No. 17-868-CFC
`
`Defendants. :
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`In this patent case, Defendant L’Oréal USA, Inc. (“L’Ore’al USA”) filed a
`
`motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). DJ. 15.
`
`Defendant L’Oréal S.A. (“L’Oréal S.A.”) filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(b)(2). D.I. 23. Both motions were referred to a
`
`Magistrate Judge who recommended in a Report and Recommendation (D.I. 31)
`
`that the court (1) deny the motions insofar as they sought dismissal pursuant to
`
`Rule 12(b)(6), and (2) grant L’Oréal S.A’s motion insofar as it sought dismissal
`
`pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction over L’Oréal S.A.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 36 Filed 05/17/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1301
`Case 1:17-cv-OO868—CFC-SRF Document 36 Filed 05/17/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1301
`
`Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the court
`
`“grant L’Ore’al S.A.’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss[,]” D.I. 31 at l, to the extent
`
`the recommendation was based on the Magistrate Judge’s decision to “discredit[ ]
`
`Plaintiffs’ argument that L’Oréal USA. is L’Oréal S.A.’s United States agent for
`
`the purpose of designing and developing the accused [infringing] products[,]” D.I.
`
`32 at 1. I review de novo the findings to which Plaintiffs object.
`
`Personal jurisdiction analysis for patent claims is governed by Federal
`
`Circuit law. Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003). Whether to grant jurisdictional discovery, however, is a question governed
`
`by regional circuit law. See Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd, 566
`
`F.3d 1012, 1021—22 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We review the district court’s denial of
`
`[jurisdictional] discovery, an issue not unique to patent law, for abuse of discretion,
`
`applying the law of the regional circuit.” (citations omitted».
`
`Under Federal Circuit law, in deciding whether personal jurisdiction exists,
`
`“a district court must accept the uncontroverted allegations in the plaintiff’s
`
`complaint as true and resolve any factual conflicts in [any] affidavits [submitted by
`
`the parties] in the plaintiff s favor.” Coyle, 340 F.3d at 1349. When a motion to
`
`dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is decided on the basis of affidavits and
`
`other written materials in the absence of an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need
`
`only make a primafacie showing that a defendant is subject to the court’s
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 36 Filed 05/17/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1302
`Case 1:17-cv-OO868—CFC-SRF Document 36 Filed 05/17/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1302
`
`jurisdiction. Id. To establish jurisdiction under an agency theory, Plaintiffs “must
`
`show that [L’Oréal S.A.] exercises control over the activities of” L’Ore’al USA.
`
`Celgard, LLC 12. SK Innovation Co., Ltd, 792 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`Under Third Circuit law, “courts are to assist the plaintiff by allowing
`
`jurisdictional discovery unless the plaintiff 5 claim is ‘clearly fi'ivolous.
`
`Toys
`
`9”
`
`“R ” Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446, 456 (3d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
`
`If a plaintiff presents factual allegations that suggest with “reasonable
`
`particularity” the possible existence of personal jurisdiction over a defendant, then >
`
`“the plaintiff’s right to conduct jurisdictional discovery should be sustained.” Id.
`
`Plaintiffs argue that the Magistrate Judge “brushed [
`
`] aside” what Plaintiffs
`
`describe as “substantial evidence that L’Oréal S.A. develops and sells the Accused
`
`Products in the United States, and in Delaware, by designing and developing the
`
`infringing Accused Products, which [L’Oréal USA] then manufactures and
`
`distributes here.” D.I. 32 at 3—4. But the Magistrate Judge expressly addressed
`
`and thoughtfully considered the evidence proffered by Plaintiffs, see DJ. 31 at 21-
`
`24; and, having reviewed the proffered evidence myself, I agree with the
`
`Magistrate Judge that the evidence in question, even when viewed most favorably
`
`for Plaintiffs, does not constitute primafacia evidence, let alone substantial
`
`evidence, that L’Oréal S.A. exercised control over L’Oréal USA’s manufacture
`
`and/or distribution of the Accused Products in the United States.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 36 Filed 05/17/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1303
`Case 1:17-cv-00868-CFC-SRF Document 36 Filed 05/17/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1303
`
`I also agree with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiffs have failed
`
`to suggest with reasonable particularity that this Court may have personal
`
`jurisdiction over L’Oréal S.A. See D.I. 31 at 24. “A plaintiff may not [
`
`]
`
`undertake a fishing expedition based only upon bare allegations, under the guise of
`
`jurisdictional discovery.” Eurofins Pharma US Holdings v. BioAllz'ance Pharma
`
`SA, 623 F.3d 147, 157 (3d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ objection (D1. 32) is OVERRULED; and, there
`
`being no other objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Report and
`
`Recommendation (D.I. 31) is ADOPTED. Defendant L’Oréal USA, Inc.’s motion
`
`to dismiss (DJ. 15) is DENIED. Defendant L’Oréal S.A.’S motion to dismiss (D.I.
`
`23) is GRANTED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket