Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 48 Filed 08/22/22 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 756
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.; and ATI
`TECHNOLOGIES ULC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD.; TCL
`INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS (H.K.) LIMITED;
`TCL ELECTRONICS HOLDINGS LIMITED;
`TCL TECHNOLOGY GROUP CORPORATION;
`TTE CORPORATION; TCL HOLDINGS (BVI)
`LIMITED; TCL KING ELECTRICAL
`APPLIANCES (HUIZHOU) CO. LTD.;
`SHENZHEN TCL NEW TECHNOLOGIES CO.,
`LTD.; TCL MOKA INTERNATIONAL
`LIMITED; TCL SMART DEVICE (VIETNAM)
`CO., LTD; MANUFACTURAS AVANZADAS
`SA DE CV; TCL ELECTRONICS MEXICO, S
`DE RL DE CV; TCL OVERSEAS MARKETING
`LTD.; and REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR
`CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C. A. NO. 2:22-CV-00134
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORP.’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 48 Filed 08/22/22 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 757
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Procedural History. ..................................................................................................1
`
`AMD’s Complaint Includes Only Conclusory and Insufficient Jurisdictional
`Allegations. ..............................................................................................................2
`
`AMD Has Failed to Allege that Realtek Has Sufficient Contacts with, and
`Purposefully Directs Relevant Conduct Towards, Texas. .......................................3
`
`III.
`
`THIS COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER REALTEK. ......................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Legal Standard .........................................................................................................4
`
`Realtek is Not Subject to Federal Long-Arm Jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2). .......5
`
`Realtek is Not Subject to General Jurisdiction in This District. ..............................6
`
`Realtek is Not Subject to Specific Jurisdiction in This District...............................7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`AMD has not alleged any activities of Realtek that are purposefully
`directed at Texas. .........................................................................................7
`
`AMD has also failed to plead facts supporting specific jurisdiction
`over Realtek under the stream-of-commerce theory. .................................10
`
`Asserting personal jurisdiction over Realtek would be unreasonable
`and unfair. ..................................................................................................15
`
`E.
`
`Because the Factual Allegations of the Complaint Fail to Establish a Prima
`Facie Case of Personal Jurisdiction, AMD is Not Entitled to Jurisdictional
`Discovery . ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................18
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 48 Filed 08/22/22 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 758
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Acceleron, LLC v. Egenera, Inc.,
`634 F. Supp. 2d 758 (E.D. Tex. 2009) .................................................................................7, 18
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`Case No. 14-cv-01012-SI, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal) ....................................................................17
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al v. MediaTek Inc. et al,
`Case No. 1:19-cv-00070, Dkt. No. 1 (D. Del.) ........................................................................17
`
`AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp.,
`689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................7, 11
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:17-CV-00514-JRG, 2018 WL 4680557 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018) .............................17
`
`Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct.,
`480 U.S. 102 (1987) .....................................................................................................11, 16, 17
`
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd.,
`566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................4
`
`Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp.,
`21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994)............................................................................................11, 15
`
`Blue Spike, LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd,
`No. 6:13-CV-00679-RWS, 2016 WL 3951665 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2016)...............................12
`
`Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc.,
`No. 6:12-cv-00499, 2014 WL 11829323 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2014) .................................. 7-10
`
`Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc,
`No. 6:12-CV-00499, 2014 WL 11858192 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2014) ..................................4, 8
`
`Bluestone Innovations Texas, L.L.C. v. Formosa Epitaxy Inc.,
`822 F. Supp. 2d 657 (E.D. Tex. 2011) .......................................................................................6
`
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
`471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985) .........................................................................................................15
`
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd.,
`792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................................4, 18
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 48 Filed 08/22/22 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 759
`
`
`
`City of El Paso v. Soule,
`991 F. Supp. 812 (W.D. Tex. 1998).........................................................................................16
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Dillard v. Federal Corp.
`321 F. Supp. 3d 752, 761 (W.D. Tex. 2018)............................................................................16
`
`Elecs. for Imaging Inc. v. Coyle,
`340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................7
`
`Fellowship Filtering Techs., LLC v. Alibaba.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-CV-2049-JRG, 2016 WL 6917272 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2016) .............................4, 18
`
`Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. v. Amtran Tech. Co.,
`No. A-12-CV-644-LY, 2014 WL 1603665 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2014) .....................10, 14, 15
`
`Freudensprung v. Offshore Tech. Servs., Inc.,
`379 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2004) .....................................................................................................8
`
`Future Link Systems, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00363 .................................................................................................................1, 3
`
`Garnet Digital, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`893 F. Supp. 2d 814 (E.D. Tex. 2012) .................................................................................7, 10
`
`Georgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Tetra Tech Canada Inc.,
`No. 6:18-CV-377-RWS-KNM, 2019 WL 5954966 (E.D. Tex. July 17, 2019).....................5, 6
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown,
`564 U.S. 915 (2011) .................................................................................................................11
`
`Hanson v. Denckla,
`357 U.S. 235 (1958) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall,
`466 U.S. 408 (1984) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`ISI Intern., Inc. v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP,
`256 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2001) .....................................................................................................5
`
`J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro,
`564 U.S. 873 (2011) ...........................................................................................................11, 15
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 48 Filed 08/22/22 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 760
`
`
`
`Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int’l Corp.,
`523 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................5, 6, 7
`
`Largan Precision Co. v. Ability Opto-Elecs. Tech. Co.,
`No. 4:19-CV-696, 2020 WL 569815 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2020) ...............................................13
`
`M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda.,
`890 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................15
`
`Med. Sols., Inc. v. C Change Surgical LLC,
`541 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................5
`
`Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.,
`681 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................5
`
`Moncrief Oil Int’l Inc. v. OAO Gazprom,
`481 F.3d 309, 312 (5th Cir. 2007) .......................................................................................9, 10
`
`Motion Games, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`No. 6:12-cv-878-JDL, 2014 WL 5306961 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2014) .....................................18
`
`Nuance Commc’ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House,
`626 F.3d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..............................................................................................4, 7
`
`Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. Power Co.,
`253 F.3d 865 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)...........................................................................4, 18
`
`Nygaard v. Federation Internationale de L’Automobile,
`No. 6:20-cv-234-ADA (W.D. Tex. July 15, 2021) ..................................................................12
`
`Pieczenik v. Dyax Corp.,
`265 F.3d 1329,1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001).........................................................................................4
`
`Polar Electro Oy v. Suunto Oy,
`829 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................4, 11
`
`Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.,
`148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................6
`
`Revell v. Lidov,
`317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................................9
`
`Salter v. Upjohn Co.,
`593 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 1979) ...........................................................................................18
`
`Silicon Laboratories, Inc. v. Cresta Technology Corp.
`No. A-14-CA-318-SS, 2014 WL 3530817 (W.D. Tex. July 14, 2014) .............................13, 14
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 48 Filed 08/22/22 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 761
`
`
`
`Sorkin v. Dayton Superior Corp.,
`2006 WL 2141255 (S.D. Tex. July 28, 2006) ..........................................................................14
`
`Stellar Restoration Servs., LLC v. James Christopher Courtney,
`533 F. Supp. 3d 394 (E.D. Tex. 2021) .......................................................................................4
`
`Synthes (U.S.A.) v. G.M. Dos Reis Jr. Ind. Com de Equip. Medico,
`563 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................6, 16
`
`Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin & Parr,
`574 F.3d 1403 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................5
`
`TriOptima AB v. Quantile Techs. Ltd.,
`No. 2:19-CV-00390-JRG, 2020 WL 11613655 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2020)............................10
`
`Walden v. Fiore,
`571 U.S. 277 (2014) .........................................................................................................7, 8, 10
`
`World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,
`444 U.S. 286 (1980) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3) ......................................................................................................................1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2)..................................................................................................................5, 6
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)................................................................................................................1, 4
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 48 Filed 08/22/22 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 762
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies ULC (collectively, “AMD” or
`
`“Plaintiffs”) have improperly sued an entirely foreign company over which this Court cannot exert
`
`jurisdiction consistent with the Due Process Clause. Even more concerning is that underlying the
`
`inadequate allegations of the Complaint is an apparent lack of any adequate pre-suit investigation of
`
`Defendant Realtek Semiconductor Corp.’s (“Realtek”) contacts with this forum.
`
`This Court should dismiss all claims against Realtek because it lacks personal jurisdiction.
`
`AMD has not demonstrated in its Complaint any connection between Realtek and Texas. Realtek is
`
`headquartered in Taiwan; has no subsidiaries, facilities, or operations in Texas; and AMD has pled no
`
`facts showing any advertising, marketing, or sale by Realtek anywhere in this District. AMD alleged
`
`no facts and provided no evidence that Realtek is connected to or purposefully directed any activities
`
`to Texas. AMD’s conclusory allegations regarding personal jurisdiction are speculative, have no
`
`factual support, and fail to establish a good faith, let alone a prima facie, basis for asserting that this
`
`Court has personal jurisdiction over Realtek. Indeed, the district court in the Western District of Texas
`
`recently indicated in another patent case that it would grant Realtek’s motion to dismiss for lack of
`
`personal jurisdiction under similar facts.1 And given AMD’s failure to establish even a prima facie
`
`basis for personal jurisdiction, it is not entitled to conduct jurisdictional discovery.
`
`Accordingly, Realtek respectfully moves that this Court dismiss the Complaint, with prejudice,
`
`for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2).
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Procedural History.
`
`AMD filed their Complaint on May 5, 2022, alleging infringement of five United States patents
`
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) by Realtek and several other defendants. Dkt. No. 1. AMD
`
`made a few unsuccessful attempts to serve Realtek with the Complaint before moving for alternative
`
`
`1 In Future Link Systems, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp., No. 6:21-cv-00363 in the Western
`District of Texas, Realtek filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficient
`service of process. Dkt. 20. The Court entered a text order indicating that it intended to grant the
`motion on at least one issue and stayed the case pending an opinion (Docket Text Order dated
`March 30, 2022). Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal before the opinion issued. Dkt. 54.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 48 Filed 08/22/22 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 763
`
`
`
`service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). The Court granted that motion on August 1, 2022, and directed
`
`AMD to serve Realtek by delivering the summons and complaint via email to Realtek’s counsel of
`
`record in related ITC proceedings. AMD sent the electronic service later that day.
`
`In the meantime, TCL defendants had filed an unopposed motion to stay the case pending the
`
`resolution of parallel ITC investigation No. 337-TA-1318. Dkt. No. 36. On August 11, 2022, the
`
`Court granted this motion and stayed the case with respect to TCL pending resolution of the ITC
`
`proceeding. Dkt. No. 44. AMD also filed a motion to stay the remainder of the action pending final
`
`determination of the ITC proceeding, which motion remains pending. Dkt. Nos. 37, 43. Realtek
`
`recently filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a discretionary stay, because there is no basis for
`
`plaintiffs to stay their own litigation against Realtek so they can litigate the ITC and district court cases
`
`sequentially and have two bites at the apple. Dkt. No. 43. Realtek continues to maintain that this
`
`litigation should proceed in parallel with the ITC investigation, beginning with a determination that
`
`this is not the proper forum for adjudicating AMD’s claims against Realtek because AMD has failed
`
`to adequately plead personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, this motion should be decided prior to the
`
`Court ruling on AMD’s motion to stay, as it would render AMD’s motion to stay moot.
`
`B.
`
`AMD’s Complaint Includes Only Conclusory and Insufficient Jurisdictional
`Allegations.
`
`AMD’s Complaint acknowledges that Realtek Semiconductor Corp. (“Realtek”) “is a
`
`Taiwanese corporation with a principal place of business at No. 2 Innovation Road II, Hsinchu Science
`
`Park, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan.” Complaint ¶ 39. AMD then alleges generally that this Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over Realtek based on conclusory recitations of jurisdictional tests:
`
`Upon information and belief, Realtek is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction
`pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at least to its
`substantial business in Texas and judicial district. Realtek, directly and through
`subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has
`purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of its infringing products and/or
`services, as described below, into the stream of commerce with the expectation that
`those products will be purchased and used by consumers in the Eastern District of
`Texas. These infringing products and/or services have been and continue to be
`purchased and used by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas. Realtek has
`committed acts of patent infringement within the Eastern District of Texas. On
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 48 Filed 08/22/22 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 764
`
`
`
`information and belief, Realtek has also placed integrated circuits, RDKs and
`development/demonstration printed circuit board assemblies incorporating such
`RDKs and integrated circuits pertaining to televisions, smart devices, and graphics
`devices into the stream of commerce by shipping infringing products into Texas
`and this judicial district, and/or knowing that those products would be shipped into
`Texas and this judicial district.
`
`Id. ¶ 52. AMD offers no factual support for its allegations that Realtek “directly and through
`
`subsidiaries” imports, offers, or sells even a single accused product in Texas, which calls into question
`
`whether AMD conducted an adequate pre-filing investigation prior to filing this lawsuit.
`
`
`
`AMD’s Complaint is filled with boilerplate assertions of personal jurisdiction, but it contains
`
`no plausible facts supporting jurisdiction. For example, AMD alleges in the abstract that Realtek has
`
`“substantial business in Texas” and that Realtek’s products or services “have been and continue to be
`
`purchased and used by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas,” but it offers no specific examples
`
`of any business transacted in Texas or products purchased and used within this district. The Complaint
`
`merely alleges contacts that Realtek has broadly with the United States and North America. 2
`
`Complaint ¶¶ 42-45. AMD makes no meaningful attempt to allege that any of this activity is directed,
`
`controlled, or even influenced by Realtek, and it cannot even bring itself to assert that Realtek is
`
`actually aware of these third-party sales. See Complaint ¶ 79 (alleging only that Realtek “know[s] or
`
`should have known” about alleged instances of patent infringement (emphasis added)).
`
`C.
`
`AMD Has Failed to Allege that Realtek Has Sufficient Contacts with, and
`Purposefully Directs Relevant Conduct Towards, Texas.
`
`Realtek is not authorized, registered, or licensed to do business in Texas; Realtek has no place
`
`of business or operations in Texas; and Realtek does not own or lease any real property, personal
`
`property, telephone listing, office space or equipment, bank accounts, or any other assets in Texas.3
`
`AMD has not identified any Realtek subsidiary, affiliate, or employee in Texas. See generally,
`
`Complaint. AMD has not identified any Realtek product sold in Texas by Realtek or imported into
`
`
`2 AMD makes one reference to a 2020 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Nevada where
`allegedly Realtek exhibited various products. Complaint ¶ 42. But all other allegations refer to
`the United States or North America generally.
`
`3 See Case No. 6:21-cv-01353, Future Link Systems, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor Corp.,
`Declaration of Lee, Dkt. 9-1, ¶ 7, U.S. District Court for Western District of Texas.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 48 Filed 08/22/22 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 765
`
`
`
`Texas by Realtek. See generally, Complaint.
`
`III. THIS COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER REALTEK.
`
`AMD’s claims should be dismissed because it has failed to allege facts sufficient to support
`
`this Court exercising personal jurisdiction over Realtek. Accordingly, as a foreign entity lacking
`
`minimum contacts with Texas, Realtek is subject to neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction,
`
`including under either articulation of the stream-of-commerce theory.
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), the Court may dismiss an action when it
`
`lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In response to a Rule 12(b)(2) motion challenging
`
`personal jurisdiction, the “plaintiff bears the burden of establishing minimum contacts, and upon that
`
`showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the exercise of jurisdiction would be
`
`unreasonable.” Polar Electro Oy v. Suunto Oy, 829 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Prior to
`
`conducting jurisdictional discovery or an evidentiary hearing on personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff
`
`usually bears only a prima facie burden of demonstrating jurisdiction. Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation
`
`Co., Ltd., 792 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). However, in assessing personal jurisdiction, this Court
`
`need not credit conclusory allegations, even if uncontroverted. Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac
`
`Elec. Power Co., 253 F.3d 865, 869 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Stellar Restoration Servs., LLC v.
`
`James Christopher Courtney, 533 F. Supp. 3d 394, 411 (E.D. Tex. 2021); Fellowship Filtering Techs.,
`
`LLC v. Alibaba.com, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-2049-JRG, 2016 WL 6917272, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2016)
`
`(applying principle to patent infringement action); Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc, No. 6:12-
`
`CV-499, 2014 WL 11858192, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2014) (same). Following jurisdictional
`
`discovery, the plaintiff has the burden to prove personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence. Celgard, 792 F.3d at 1378 (citing Pieczenik v. Dyax Corp., 265 F.3d 1329,1334 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2001)).
`
`In patent cases, Federal Circuit law determines whether a district court may exercise personal
`
`jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant. Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d
`
`1012, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Nuance Commc’ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1230
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 48 Filed 08/22/22 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 766
`
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010). Personal jurisdiction is proper “in a patent infringement case if two things are true.
`
`First, jurisdiction must exist under the forum state’s long-arm statute. Second, the assertion of personal
`
`jurisdiction must be consistent with the limitations of the due process clause.” Med. Sols., Inc. v. C
`
`Change Surgical LLC, 541 F.3d 1136, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted); see also Int’l
`
`Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). “Because the Texas long-arm statute extends to the
`
`limits of federal due process, the two-step inquiry collapses into one federal due process analysis.”
`
`Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int’l Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2008).
`
`Federal due process requires that a non-resident defendant have “minimum contacts” with the
`
`forum state such that subjecting the non-resident to jurisdiction “does not offend traditional notions of
`
`fair play and substantial justice.” World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291-92
`
`(1980); Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316. A defendant has minimum contacts with a forum state when it
`
`“purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking
`
`the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958).
`
`B.
`
`Realtek is Not Subject to Federal Long-Arm Jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2).
`
`To begin, AMD cannot rely on Rule 4(k)(2) as an alternative to the Texas long-arm statute.
`
`Rule 4(k)(2) “approximates a federal long-arm statute”—filling the gap where no federal court would
`
`otherwise have jurisdiction—and permits personal jurisdiction where the “(1) the plaintiff’s claim
`
`arises under federal law, (2) the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the courts of any
`
`state, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction satisfies due process requirements.” Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.,
`
`681 F.3d 1283, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). But Rule 4(k)(2) does not apply here.
`
`Under Merial’s second element, “[a] defendant who wants to preclude the use of Rule 4(k)(2)
`
`has only to name some other state in which the suit could proceed.” Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin &
`
`Parr, 574 F.3d 1403, 1414 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting ISI Intern., Inc. v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP,
`
`256 F.3d 548, 552 (7th Cir. 2001)); id. at 1415 (adopting ISI). Realtek identifies the U.S. District Court
`
`for the Northern District of California as a forum in which personal jurisdiction would be appropriate
`
`for the purposes of this action. That alone is sufficient to defeat any reliance on Rule 4(k)(2). Id. (A
`
`defendant avoids Rule 4(k)(2) “when it designates a suitable forum in which the plaintiff could have
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 48 Filed 08/22/22 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 767
`
`
`
`brought suit.”); see also Georgetown Rail Equip. Co. v. Tetra Tech Canada Inc., No. 6:18-CV-377-
`
`RWS-KNM, 2019 WL 5954966, at *8 (E.D. Tex. July 17, 2019) (concluding that Rule 4(k)(2) is
`
`inapplicable because the defendant identified an alternative forum where the suit could have been
`
`brought); cf., Bluestone Innovations Texas, L.L.C. v. Formosa Epitaxy Inc., 822 F. Supp. 2d 657, 663
`
`(E.D. Tex. 2011) (stating in the inverse that courts can use Rule 4(k)(2) if a defendant “contends that
`
`he cannot be sued in the forum state and refuses to identify any other where suit is possible” (citation
`
`omitted)).
`
`Finally, even if reliance on Rule 4(k)(2) were proper, Merial’s third element—the due process
`
`analysis—incorporates the same constitutional standard applicable in other personal jurisdiction
`
`contexts. Synthes (U.S.A.) v. G.M. Dos Reis Jr. Ind. Com de Equip. Medico, 563 F.3d 1285, 1296-97
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009). Thus, personal jurisdiction would be improper for all the reasons discussed below.
`
`C.
`
`Realtek is Not Subject to General Jurisdiction in This District.
`
`AMD does not allege—nor could it—that Realtek is subject to general jurisdiction, either in
`
`Texas or elsewhere in the United States. Realtek is a Taiwanese corporation with its principal place
`
`of business in Taiwan. Complaint ¶ 39.
`
`General jurisdiction exists where a non-resident defendant’s forum contacts are continuous and
`
`systematic; random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts are insufficient. Helicopteros Nacionales de
`
`Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416 (1984); Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.,
`
`148 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1998). General jurisdiction is present only when a “corporation’s
`
`affiliations with the State are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home in the
`
`forum state.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 138-39 (2014) (emphasis added). The “paradigm
`
`all-purpose forums” for general jurisdiction over a corporation are its place of incorporation and
`
`principal place of business. Id. In particular, “in order to confer general jurisdiction a defendant must
`
`have a business presence in Texas … [i]t is not enough that a corporation do business with Texas.
`
`Johnston v. Multidata Systems Int’l Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 611-612 (5th Cir. 2008).
`
`Realtek is “at home” in Taiwan, not in Texas or anywhere else in the United States. AMD has
`
`not pled any facts (nor could it) demonstrating that Realtek has substantial, continuous, and systematic
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 48 Filed 08/22/22 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 768
`
`
`
`contacts with Texas. Rather, the Complaint admits that Realtek is a Taiwanese company with its
`
`principal place of business in Taiwan. Complaint ¶ 39. It has no bank accounts, real property, personal
`
`property, telephone listing, or any other assets in Texas and does not lease office space or equipment
`
`in Texas. See supra at n. 3; Johnston, 523 F.3d at 611-612 (no general jurisdiction over corporation
`
`that had three percent of total sales to Texas customers and periodically sent employees to Texas to
`
`service equipment or attend trade conventions); Acceleron, LLC v. Egenera, Inc., 634 F. Supp. 2d 758,
`
`769 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (finding no general or specific jurisdiction over defendant that “has never made,
`
`used, imported, sold, or offered to sell any of the accused products in Texas”).
`
`D.
`
`Realtek is Not Subject to Specific Jurisdiction in This District.
`
`Absent general jurisdiction, AMD must rely on specific jurisdiction, which exists in a patent
`
`case only if the facts demonstrate sufficient minimum contacts under a three-part test that examines
`
`“(1) whether the defendant purposefully directs activities at the forum’s residents; (2) whether the
`
`claim arises out of or relates to those activities; and (3) whether assertion of personal jurisdiction is
`
`reasonable and fair.” AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp., 689 F.3d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012);
`
`Nuance Commc’ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The plaintiff
`
`has the burden to establish minimum contacts (the first two prongs); if successful, the defendant must
`
`show the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable under the third. Elecs. for Imaging Inc. v.
`
`Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003). None of the three prongs have been met as to Realtek.
`
`1.
`
`AMD has not alleged any activities of Realtek that are purposefully
`directed at Texas.
`
`When a litigation arises from allegations that infringing products were used within the forum
`
`or sold to residents of the forum, the plaintiff must prove that the accused contacts were the result of
`
`defendant’s own activities, not the activities of third parties. Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 291 (2014)
`
`(“[I]t is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State.”);
`
`Garnet Digital, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 893 F. Supp. 2d 814, 816 (E.D. Tex. 2012) (“The test … focuses
`
`on defendant’s actions with the forum state and not a third party’s independent actions.”); Blue Spike,
`
`LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00499, 2014 WL 11829323, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31,
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 48 Filed 08/22/22 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 769
`
`
`
`2014) (same). “Suffering harm in Texas is insufficient to establish specific jurisdiction.” Blue Spike,
`
`2014 WL 11829323, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2014) (citing Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 473 n.41
`
`(5th Cir. 2002)). The specific jurisdiction inquiry rests on “the relationship between the defendant, the
`
`forum, and the litigation.” Freudensprung v. Offshor