Stream of commerce insufficient basis for personal jurisdiction over foreign holding companies
Monsanto v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc. et al., No. 04-305-SLR, Aug. 4, 2006.
Robinson, J. Syngenta foreign holding companies’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted. The disputed technology involves glyphosate-tolerant corn.
In this antitrust action over rights to disputed corn seed, the court ruled that Swiss holding companies were not subject to personal jurisdiction. They do not conduct business in Delaware, nor produce, market or sell any product in Delaware. Attendance at a single meeting in Delaware where marketing strategies were discussed is insufficient to establish general jurisdiction. There is no evidence the acts alleged in Monsanto’s counterclaims took place in Delaware at that meeting. An overlap of some officers and directors, transfer of employees, and involvement in formulating strategic policy were insufficient to establish an agency relationship. The mere fact that Swiss companies own a Delaware subsidiary is an insufficient basis to exercise personal jurisdiction over the non-Delaware parent. The stream of commerce theory is insufficient to establish minimum contacts. Press releases do not give rise to personal jurisdiction unless “expressly aimed” and the relevant forum. Except for a claim of sham litigation, the filing of the antitrust lawsuit cannot serve as a basis for personal jurisdiction. Monsanto failed to establish lack of jurisdiction of any state under Rule 4(k)(2), a basis for jurisdiction over a foreign defendant where there are insufficient contacts with any single forum.
