Evidence of intent to serve the Delaware market overcomes jurisdictional challenge
Stark, J. Motion to dismiss is denied following jurisdictional discovery where evidence shows defendant’s intent and purpose to serve the Delaware market.
Following jurisdictional discovery, the Court concludes that plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to establish that defendant had intent and purpose to serve the United States market, including Delaware, with regard to the accused products. This evidence is sufficient to establish jurisdiction in Delaware pursuant to the dual jurisdictional theory of personal jurisdiction developed by courts interpreting Delaware’s long-arm statute. Specifically the Court finds persuasive the fact that defendants’ products at issue (the “accused chips”) were in certain Samsung cell phone chargers and that tens of thousands of chargers containing the accused chips have been shipped into Delaware through established sales channels. Moreover, defendant knew it was reasonably likely that its accused chips would end up in the U.S., including Delaware, as components of Samsung’s cell phone chargers. Defendant has established distribution channels in the US and has close relationships with end users of its products in the US, including Delaware. This same evidence, along with evidence that defendant designed accused chips to meet U.S. specifications (and therefore the Delaware market since there is no suggestion that the design standards would be different), satisfies the due process analysis required.
A copy of the full opinion is available here.
