Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.30 Filed 01/21/22 Page 1 of 29
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`APTIV SERVICES US, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP
`
`Hon. Denise Page Hood
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL AND
`SUBJECT MATTER JURIDICTION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO
`DISMISS OR TRANSFER UNDER THE FIRST-TO-FILE RULE
`
`Defendant Blitzsafe Texas, LLC (“Blitzsafe Texas”) respectfully moves this
`
`Court to dismiss Aptiv Services US, LLC’s (“Aptiv Services”) Complaint for
`
`Declaratory Judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of subject matter
`
`jurisdiction or, in the alternative, dismiss this case under the first-to-file rule or
`
`transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1, the parties discussed this issue and their respective
`
`positions on a telephonic conference on January 21, 2022. Aptiv Services refused its
`
`concurrence in the relief requested in this motion.
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.31 Filed 01/21/22 Page 2 of 29
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C.
`
`By: s/ Jeffrey A. Crapko
`Jeffrey A. Crapko (P78487)
`150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500
`Detroit, MI 48226
`Telephone: (248) 267-3237
`crapko@millercanfield.com
`Counsel for Defendant
`
`Dated: January 21, 2022
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.32 Filed 01/21/22 Page 3 of 29
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`APTIV SERVICES US, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`BLITZSAFE TEXAS, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP
`
`Hon. Denise Page Hood
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
`TO DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`FOR LACK OF PERSONAL AND SUBJECT MATTER JURIDICTION,
`OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DISMISS OR
`TRANSFER UNDER THE FIRST-TO-FILE RULE
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.33 Filed 01/21/22 Page 4 of 29
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`II.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`A.
`The Parties ............................................................................................. 2
`B.
`Prior Enforcement Actions .................................................................... 3
`III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Personal Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over Blitzsafe Texas in
`Michigan ................................................................................................ 3
`1.
`General Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over Blitzsafe Texas
`Because Blitzsafe Texas Has No Contacts with Michigan ......... 5
`Specific Jurisdiction Does Not Exist over Blitzsafe Texas
`in Michigan ................................................................................. 5
`Personal Jurisdiction Over Blitzsafe Texas Would Not
`Comport with Fair Play and Substantial Justice .......................10
`The Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because Aptiv Services
`Cannot Establish Subject Matter Jurisdiction .....................................11
`The Complaint Should Be Dismissed or Transferred Under the
`First-To-File Rule ................................................................................15
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................19
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.34 Filed 01/21/22 Page 5 of 29
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Tejas Research, LLC,
`No. C-14-0868 EMC, 2014 WL 4651654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17,
`2014) ................................................................................................................... 15
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech Ltd.,
`566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 11, 13
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech., Ltd.,
`No. SACV 07–846–MRP, 2008 WL 7071464 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17,
`2008), aff’d 566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................... 16
`Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.,
`552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................. 10, 12, 15
`Baatz v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC,
`814 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 24, 25
`Benitec Australia, Ltd v. Nucleonics, Inc.,
`495 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 18
`Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.,
`444 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................... 16
`Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp.,
`511 F.3d 535 (6th Cir.2007) ............................................................................... 24
`Clear!Blue, LLC. v. Clear Blue, Inc.,
`521 F.Supp.2d 612 (E.D. Mich., 2007) .............................................................. 23
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) ............................................................................................ 12
`Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1111 (2004) ................ 12
`Futurewei Techs., Inc. v. Acacia Research Corp.,
`737 F.3d 704 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 23
`ii
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.35 Filed 01/21/22 Page 6 of 29
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown,
`564 U.S. 915 (2011) ............................................................................................ 11
`Hanson v. Denckla,
`357 U.S. 253 (1958) ............................................................................................ 12
`Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall,
`466 U.S. 408 (1984) ............................................................................................ 11
`Hewlett Packard Co. v. Acceleron LLC,
`587 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 19
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. SSL Servs., LLC,
`2009 WL 3837266 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009), aff’d, 2010 WL
`5140471 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2010) ..................................................................... 15
`Magna Mirrors of Am., Inc. v. Dura Operating Corp.,
`No. 09-12306, 2010 WL 1438992, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 9, 2010) ................. 24
`Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller,
`664 F.2d 899 (2d Cir. 1981) ............................................................................... 12
`Maxchief Invs. Ltd. v. Wok & Pan, Ind., Inc.,
`909 F.3d 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .......................................................................... 14
`Medlmmune Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`549 U.S. 118 (2009) ...................................................................................... 19, 21
`Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog,
`954 F.2d 1174 (6th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 11
`Nartron Corp. v. Quantum Research. Grp., Ltd.,
`473 F. Supp. 2d 790 (E.D. Mich. 2007) ....................................................... 22, 23
`Prasco, LLC v. Medics Pharm. Corp.,
`537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 18
`Precision Extraction Corp. v. Udoxi Sci., LLC,
`No. 16-CV-11972, 2016 WL 7158884 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2016) .............. 11, 17
`Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc.,
`638 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 13
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.36 Filed 01/21/22 Page 7 of 29
`
`Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.,
`148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................... 11, 16
`RxHeat, LLC v. Thermapure, Inc.,
`No. 4:10-CV-2402 JCH, 2011 WL 998158 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17,
`2011) ................................................................................................................... 15
`SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.,
`480 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 19
`Serras v. First Tenn. Bank Nat. Ass’n,
`875 F.2d 1212 (6th Cir. 1989) ............................................................................ 12
`Sierra Wireless, Inc. v. MSTG, Inc.,
`No. 11 C 1031, 2011 WL 761487 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 24, 2011) ........................ 21, 22
`Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Indus., Inc.,
`326 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .......................................................................... 13
`Smith v. SEC,
`129 F.3d 356 (6th Cir.1997) (en banc) ............................................................... 24
`Walden v. Fiore,
`571 U.S. 277 (2014) ...................................................................................... 14, 15
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C § 315(a)(1) ................................................................................................ 17
`35 U.S.C § 315(b) .................................................................................................... 16
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) ............................................................................................ 10
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.37 Filed 01/21/22 Page 8 of 29
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Does this Court lack personal jurisdiction over Blitzsafe Texas in the instant
`Declaratory Judgment action?
`Defendant’s Answer: Yes
`Does this Court lack subject matter jurisdiction over Blitzsafe Texas in the
`instant Declaratory Judgment action?
`Defendant’s Answer: Yes
`Should this action be dismissed under the first-to-file rule?
`Defendant’s Answer: Yes
`Should this action be dismissed or transferred to the Eastern District of Texas
`where Blitzsafe’s Texas’s action against Aptiv PLC is currently pending?
`Defendant’s Answer: Yes
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.38 Filed 01/21/22 Page 9 of 29
`
`STATEMENT OF CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
`
`Personal Jurisdiction:
`
`Maxchief Invs. Ltd. v. Wok & Pan, Ind., Inc., 909 F.3d 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., 552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
`
`Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc., 638 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
`
`Hewlett Packard Co. v. Acceleron LLC, 587 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`Sierra Wireless, Inc. v. MSTG, Inc., No. 11 C 1031, 2011 WL 761487 (N.D. Ill.
`Feb. 24, 2011)
`
`First-to-File Dismissal:
`
`Baatz v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 814 F.3d 785 (6th Cir. 2016)
`
`Nartron Corp. v. Quantum Research. Grp., Ltd., 473 F. Supp. 2d 790 (E.D. Mich.
`2007)
`
`Clear!Blue, LLC. v. Clear Blue, Inc., 521 F.Supp.2d 612 (E.D. Mich., 2007)
`
`Magna Mirrors of Am., Inc. v. Dura Operating Corp., No. 09-12306, 2010 WL
`1438992 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 9, 2010)
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.39 Filed 01/21/22 Page 10 of 29
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The instant declaratory judgment action must be dismissed because this Court
`
`lacks personal jurisdiction over Blitzsafe Texas, LLC, a Texas corporation with its
`
`only place of business being in Texas. Blitzsafe Texas does not conduct business in
`
`the State of Michigan, nor does it have any presence or contacts in Michigan.
`
`Blitzsafe Texas sells no products in Michigan and has never enforced its patents in
`
`Michigan. That Blitzsafe Texas previously sued Michigan entities in Texas which
`
`resulted in settlements is insufficient to support personal jurisdiction over Blitzsafe
`
`Texas in this Court.
`
`This action should also be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
`
`because there is no case or controversy between Blitzsafe Texas and Aptiv Services.
`
`Blitzsafe Texas filed suit in its home venue, the Eastern District of Texas, against
`
`Aptiv Services’ parent company, Aptiv PLC. Blitzsafe Texas’ allegations in that
`
`action are directed at Aptiv PLC, not Aptiv Services. Blitzsafe Texas has never
`
`threatened suit against Aptiv Services, nor has it ever expressed intent to enforce its
`
`patents against Aptiv Services. Blitzsafe Texas has never engaged in any conduct
`
`which gave rise to an immediate and concrete controversy between Aptiv Services
`
`and Blitzsafe Texas supporting subject matter jurisdiction.
`
`Finally, this action should be dismissed or transferred to the Eastern District
`
`of Texas under the first-to-file rule because this action was filed nearly four months
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.40 Filed 01/21/22 Page 11 of 29
`
`after Blitzsafe Texas filed its Complaint in the Eastern District of Texas involving
`
`nearly identical parties and issues.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`The Parties
`Blitzsafe Texas is the sole owner of all right, title, and interest in and to U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,489,786 (the “‘786 Patent”) and 8,155,342 (the “‘342 Patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). Ex. 1, ¶ 8.
`
`Blitzsafe Texas is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business
`
`located in Marshall, Texas. Ex. 1, ¶¶ 6-7. Blitzsafe Texas’ Managing Member,
`
`Mr. Ira Marlowe, resides in Florida, not Michigan. Ex. 1, ¶¶ 2, 4. Blitzsafe Texas is
`
`not registered to conduct business in Michigan; does not have a registered agent for
`
`service of process in Michigan; does not have property, offices, employees,
`
`equipment, bank accounts, or other assets in Michigan; is not subject to and has
`
`never paid taxes in Michigan; does not manufacture or sell products in Michigan;
`
`does not solicit or engage in business in Michigan; has not signed contracts in
`
`Michigan; does not recruit employees in Michigan; and does not own, lease, or rent
`
`any property in Michigan. Id. ¶¶ 9-18. Further, no lawsuit has ever been filed by
`
`Blitzsafe Texas in Michigan for any reason. Id. ¶ 19.
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.41 Filed 01/21/22 Page 12 of 29
`
`B.
`
`Prior Enforcement Actions
`
`Between 2015 and 2019, Blitzsafe Texas filed patent infringement actions
`
`involving the same Patents-in-Suit in the Eastern District of Texas. In 2021, Blitzsafe
`
`Texas filed additional infringement actions involving the same Patents-in-Suit in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas, including the action against Aptiv PLC (the “Aptiv Texas
`
`Case”). Ex. 2. On September 3, 2021, Aptiv PLC filed a motion to dismiss the Aptiv
`
`Texas Case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Ex. 3. Aptiv PLC subsequently filed a
`
`motion to stay the Aptiv Texas Case pending a decision on the motion to dismiss.
`
`Ex. 4. The court carried the motion to dismiss, denied the motion to stay pending
`
`ruling on the motion to dismiss, and granted Blitzsafe jurisdictional discovery into
`
`Aptiv PLC. Ex. 5.
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Personal Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over Blitzsafe Texas in
`Michigan
`Aptiv Services does not and cannot present facts to support a prima facie case
`
`for personal jurisdiction over Blitzsafe Texas in Michigan. Exercising jurisdiction
`
`over Blitzsafe Texas would not comport with fair play and substantial justice.
`
`Rule 12(b)(2) requires a district court to dismiss an action when the Court
`
`lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant. In a patent case, including a declaratory
`
`judgment action involving a patent, Federal Circuit law governs the inquiry. Avocent
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.42 Filed 01/21/22 Page 13 of 29
`
`Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., 552 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[W]e
`
`apply Federal Circuit law because the jurisdictional issue is ‘intimately involved
`
`with the substance of patent laws.’”) (citation omitted).
`
`Personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is proper if permitted by
`
`the forum state’s long-arm statute, and if the exercise of jurisdiction comports with
`
`due process. Precision Extraction Corp. v. Udoxi Sci., LLC, No. 16-CV-11972, 2016
`
`WL 7158884, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2016) (citing Red Wing Shoe Co. v.
`
`Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “Under
`
`Michigan’s long arm statute, the state’s jurisdiction extends to the limits imposed by
`
`federal constitutional due process requirements and thus, the two questions become
`
`one.” Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 954 F.2d
`
`1174, 1176 (6th Cir. 1992).
`
`Jurisdiction may be either “general or all-purpose jurisdiction,” or “specific
`
`or case-linked jurisdiction.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S.
`
`915, 919 (2011) (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S.
`
`408, 414, nn. 8, 9 (1984)). “Specific jurisdiction . . . must be based on activities that
`
`arise out of or relate to the cause of action.” Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech
`
`Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). However, “it is
`
`essential in each case that there must be some act by which the defendant
`
`purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.43 Filed 01/21/22 Page 14 of 29
`
`State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Avocent, 552 F.3d at
`
`1329 (quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 253, 253 (1958)) (emphasis added).
`
`Where, like here, the parties have not conducted discovery and there has been
`
`no evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff bears the burden of making a prima facie
`
`showing that defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. See Elecs. For Imaging,
`
`Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1111
`
`(2004). Such a prima facie showing will suffice, “notwithstanding any controverting
`
`presentation by the moving party” to defeat the motion. Serras v. First Tenn. Bank
`
`Nat. Ass’n, 875 F.2d 1212, 1214 (6th Cir. 1989), citing Marine Midland Bank, N.A.
`
`v. Miller, 664 F.2d 899, 904 (2d Cir. 1981).
`
`1.
`
`General Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over Blitzsafe
`Texas Because Blitzsafe Texas Has No Contacts with
`Michigan
`Aptiv Services does not allege that the Court has general jurisdiction over
`
`Blitzsafe Texas.1
`
`2.
`
`Specific Jurisdiction Does Not Exist over Blitzsafe
`Texas in Michigan
`Specific jurisdiction focuses on the “relationship among the defendant, the
`
`forum, and the litigation.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 126 (2014). The
`
`1 The jurisdiction section of Aptiv Services’ complaint explicitly alleges only that
`“Blitzsafe is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in this action.” ECF # 1,
`PageID.7, at ¶ 22.
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.44 Filed 01/21/22 Page 15 of 29
`
`exercise of specific personal jurisdiction in a patent case satisfies due process if the
`
`following three factors are met: (1) whether the defendant “purposefully directed”
`
`its activities at residents of the forum; (2) whether the claim “arises out of or relates
`
`to” the defendant’s activities with the forum; and (3) whether assertion of personal
`
`jurisdiction is “reasonable and fair.” Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Indus., Inc., 326
`
`F.3d 1194, 1201–02 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Where a patentee is sued for a declaratory
`
`judgment of non-infringement or invalidity, “only those activities of the patentee
`
`that relate to the enforcement or defense of the patent can give rise to specific
`
`personal jurisdiction for such an action.” Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc., 638
`
`F.3d 785, 789 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis added). Thus, the Court must “examine
`
`the jurisdictional facts for conduct whereby the patentee ‘may be said to purposefully
`
`avail itself of the forum and to engage in activity that relates to the validity and
`
`enforceability of the patent.’” Autogenomics, 566 F.3d at 1020 (citation omitted)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`Aptiv Services argues that personal jurisdiction is proper over Blitzsafe Texas
`
`because the Aptiv Texas Case has the potential to affect Aptiv Services’ business,
`
`and Aptiv Services is based in Michigan. ECF # 1, PageID.6 at ¶ 20. Specifically,
`
`Aptiv Services first argues that “Blitzsafe’s Texas Action targets products imported
`
`and sold by Aptiv Services, US, an LLC with its principal place of business in the
`
`Eastern District of Michigan.” Id., ¶ 20. However, as Aptiv PLC admitted in its
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.45 Filed 01/21/22 Page 16 of 29
`
`Motion to Dismiss the Aptiv Texas Case, the Accused Products are manufactured in
`
`Mexico, imported to Aptiv Services’ warehouse in Los Indios, Texas, and sold from
`
`the Texas warehouse to customers throughout the United States. Ex. 4 at 2.
`
`Therefore, Michigan is far removed from Aptiv Services’ importation and sales
`
`activities with respect to the Accused Products.
`
`Even if the “effect of the Aptiv Texas Case” is that Aptiv Services’ business
`
`in Michigan would be impacted, due process is still not satisfied because the
`
`relationship did not arise out of contacts that Blitzsafe Texas created with Michigan.
`
`Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014) (“We have consistently rejected attempts
`
`to satisfy the defendant-focused ‘minimum contacts’ inquiry by demonstrating
`
`contacts between the plaintiff (or third parties) and the forum State.”). The Federal
`
`Circuit rejected Aptiv Services’ argument in Maxchief Invs. Ltd. v. Wok & Pan, Ind.,
`
`Inc., 909 F.3d 1134, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2018). There, the plaintiff argued that a court
`
`in Tennessee could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant because the
`
`defendants’ infringement lawsuit against plaintiff’s customer in California had
`
`“effects” in Tennessee, including that defendant’s requested injunction could impact
`
`plaintiff’s Tennessee activities. Id. The Federal Circuit held the California lawsuit
`
`did not create sufficient minimum contacts, as “Wok’s lawsuit against Staples—filed
`
`in California against a California resident—was directed at California, not
`
`Tennessee.” Id. The Court should reach the same conclusion here because the Aptiv
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.46 Filed 01/21/22 Page 17 of 29
`
`Texas Case against Aptiv PLC, a foreign defendant, is directed at Texas, not
`
`Michigan. See also Walden, 571 U.S. at 291 (holding that the Nevada courts lacked
`
`jurisdiction even though the plaintiffs were Nevada residents and “suffered
`
`foreseeable harm in Nevada” because the defendant’s “relevant conduct occurred
`
`entirely in Georgia.”). Aptiv Services also suggests that personal jurisdiction is
`
`proper over Blitzsafe Texas based on the filing of prior actions involving the Patents-
`
`in-Suit against entities allegedly headquartered in Michigan—GM and FCA. See
`
`ECF # 1, PageID.6, at ¶ 20. However, the only efforts Blitzsafe Texas has made to
`
`enforce its rights in the Patents-in-Suit against any party or entity, including Aptiv
`
`PLC, GM and FCA, is the filing of cases in the Eastern District of Texas, which is
`
`insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over Blitzsafe Texas in Michigan. The
`
`Federal Circuit held in Avocent and reiterated in Radio Systems Corp. that
`
`“enforcement activities taking place outside the forum state do not give rise to
`
`personal jurisdiction in the forum.” See Radio Sys. Corp., 638 F.3d at 792; see also
`
`Avocent, 552 F.3d at 1339. District courts have rejected personal jurisdiction
`
`“premised solely on prior judicial actions in other states even when brought against
`
`a forum resident.” Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Tejas Research, LLC, No. C-14-0868 EMC,
`
`2014 WL 4651654, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014); RxHeat, LLC v. Thermapure,
`
`Inc., No. 4:10-CV-2402 JCH, 2011 WL 998158, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2011);
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. SSL Servs., LLC, No. C08-5758 SBA, 2009 WL 3837266,
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.47 Filed 01/21/22 Page 18 of 29
`
`at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009), aff’d, 2010 WL 5140471 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13,
`
`2010).
`
`The settlements that resulted from the prior actions in Texas against GM and
`
`FCA are also insufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction in Michigan.
`
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech., Ltd., No. SACV 07–846–MRP (ANx),
`
`2008 WL 7071464, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2008), aff’d 566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009) (“Extensive authority supports the proposition that other licensing activities
`
`with in-state entities, even if substantial, are generally insufficient for specific
`
`jurisdiction unless they create exclusive relationships between the patentee and
`
`residents of the forum.”) (emphasis added). The GM and FCA settlements did not
`
`create exclusive relationships with GM or FCA, and Blitzsafe Texas has had no
`
`further dealings with GM or FCA since the settlements were consummated. Ex. 1,
`
`¶ 20. A defendant may not be subjected to personal jurisdiction “where the defendant
`
`has successfully licensed the patent in the forum state, even to multiple non-
`
`exclusive licensees, but does not, for example, exercise control over the licensees’
`
`sales activities and, instead, has no dealings with those licensees beyond the receipt
`
`of royalty income.” Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., 444 F.3d
`
`1356, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) citing Red Wing Shoe, 148 F.3d at 1357–58.
`
`Aptiv Services also alleges in its Complaint that the Aptiv Texas Case targets
`
`Aptiv Services in this District because it may have “started the clock” on the one-
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.48 Filed 01/21/22 Page 19 of 29
`
`year window for Aptiv Services to file an inter partes review (“IPR”) under 35 U.S.C
`
`§ 315(b). ECF # 1, PageID.6, at ¶ 21. Aptiv Services, by filing the very same
`
`Complaint, which requests declaratory judgment that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid,
`
`has barred itself from filing an IPR under 35 U.S.C § 315(a)(1). The issue is therefore
`
`moot.2
`
`3.
`
`Personal Jurisdiction Over Blitzsafe Texas Would
`Not Comport with Fair Play and Substantial Justice
`Aptiv Services has not met its burden to show that (1) Blitzsafe Texas has
`
`purposefully directed its activities at residents of the forum; and (2) the claims arise
`
`out of or relate to these activities. Even if it had, the Court would still lack personal
`
`jurisdiction over Blitzsafe Texas because exercising such jurisdiction would not
`
`comport with fair play and substantial justice. As shown, Blitzsafe Texas has not
`
`purposefully directed any conduct constituting the requisite “other activities” at
`
`Michigan related to the enforcement or defense of the Patents-in-Suit sufficient to
`
`show that exercising jurisdiction would be fair. The “other activities” must be related
`
`2 Additionally, under 35 U.S.C § 315(a)(1), Aptiv PLC is barred from filing an IPR
`against the Patents-in-Suit. According to the Complaint, Aptiv Services is the real
`party in interest, as it “imports the Accused Products into the United States and sells
`those products to customers in the United States.” ECF # 1, PageID.4 at ¶ 10. Aptiv
`Services further states “Blitzsafe sued the wrong entity because Aptiv PLC does not
`engage in any of the alleged infringing activity.” Id. ¶ 7. Therefore, because Aptiv
`Services claims to be a real party in interest with Aptiv PLC, Aptiv Services’
`invalidity declaratory judgment claims are binding on Aptiv PLC which is also
`barred under 35 U.S.C § 315(a)(1).
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.49 Filed 01/21/22 Page 20 of 29
`
`to the cause of action, with the focus being on “the relationship among the defendant,
`
`the forum, and the litigation.” Precision Extraction Corp., 2016 WL 7158884, at
`
`*3. Here, other than the prior Eastern District of Texas cases against two Michigan
`
`entities and resulting settlements, none of which are sufficient to meet the minimum
`
`contacts test, Aptiv Services has not identified any evidence that Blitzsafe Texas has
`
`ties to the forum.
`
`Accordingly, personal jurisdiction over Blitzsafe Texas in this Court is not
`
`proper, and this case should be dismissed.
`
`B.
`
`The Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because Aptiv Services
`Cannot Establish Subject Matter Jurisdiction
`The Complaint should also be dismissed because the is no case or controversy
`
`between Blitzsafe Texas and Aptiv Services concerning the infringement or validity
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`The Declaratory Judgment Act is not an independent basis for subject matter
`
`jurisdiction. See Prasco, LLC v. Medics Pharm. Corp., 537 F.3d 1329, 1335 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008). Instead, it provides a remedy if the court already has jurisdiction. Id. A
`
`federal court’s jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act is limited by Article
`
`III, which restricts the judicial power to actual “cases” or “controversies.” U.S.
`
`Const. art. III; Id. The party seeking the declaratory judgment bears the burden of
`
`proving facts supporting the court’s jurisdiction at the time the complaint was filed
`
`and throughout the case. Benitec Australia, Ltd v. Nucleonics, Inc., 495 F.3d 1340,
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.50 Filed 01/21/22 Page 21 of 29
`
`1344 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Federal courts have jurisdiction only if the “facts alleged,
`
`under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between
`
`parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant
`
`the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Medlmmune Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549
`
`U.S. 118, 127 (2009).
`
`“In the context of conduct prior to the existence of a license, declaratory
`
`judgment jurisdiction generally will not arise merely on the basis that a party learns
`
`of the existence of a patent owned by another or even perceives such a patent to pose
`
`a risk of infringement without some affirmative act by the patentee.” SanDisk Corp.
`
`v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 480 F.3d 1372, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (emphasis
`
`added). The case or controversy requirement can be satisfied by “conduct that can
`
`be reasonably inferred as demonstrating intent to enforce a patent . . . .” Hewlett
`
`Packard Co. v. Acceleron LLC, 587 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The court
`
`must decide whether the facts as pled would establish sufficient affirmative conduct
`
`by the patent holder asserting a specific patent against identified ongoing or planned
`
`activity of the declaratory judgment plaintiff. SanDisk Corp., 480 F.3d at 1381. The
`
`question of whether conduct may be reasonably inferred as demonstrating such an
`
`intent is objective; the declaratory judgment plaintiff’s subjective belief is
`
`“irrelevant.” Hewlett Packard Co., 587 F.3d at 1363.
`
`38619573.2/160844.00001
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12040-DPH-APP ECF No. 7, PageID.51 Filed 01/21/22 Page 22 of 29
`
`Aptiv Services alleges that it is “reasonably foreseeable” that it will be sued
`
`for infringement when Blitzsafe Texas “learns that it is Aptiv Services US [and not
`
`Aptiv PLC] that sells the Accused Products in the United States.” ECF # 1, PageID.6,
`
`at ¶ 19. Aptiv Services’ allegations do not satisfy the Federal Circuit’s “all
`
`circumstances” test because Blitzsafe Texas’ conduct objectively shows that it does
`
`not intend to file suit against Aptiv Services.
`
`In 2020, Blitzsafe Texas subpoenaed Aptiv Corporation at its Troy office in
`
`connection with prior cases, seeking documents and information relevant to the
`
`Patents-in-Suit and Aptiv Corporation’s products. Ex. 6. Aptiv Corporation
`
`responded to the subpoenas and later produced documents on July 27, 2020. Id.
`
`Aptiv failed to file for declaratory judgement after receiving the subpoenas and
`
`producing document