Plaintiff fails to establish that the agency or alter ego theories of jurisdiction apply
LivePerson, Inc. v. NextCard, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 08-062-GMS, March 20, 2009.
Sleet, C.J. Court grants defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personnel jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s motions for jurisdictional discovery and to amend are denied.
This is a declaratory action for non-infringement and invalidity. Defendants engage in the business of licensing and enforcing patents. Both defendants are Texas limited liability companies with their principle places of business located in Texas. Neither company has any assets, employees or facilities in Delaware. Nor do they conduct any commerce here. Defendants are separate entities but are related through certain common entities which are not parties to this suit. Previously, certain patents, including the patents-in-suit, were purchased by one defendant through a bankruptcy auction held in Delaware and were transferred to the other defendant who then sought to enforce the patents by filing suit again plaintiff in Texas. Plaintiff contends that jurisdiction is proper here since defendants are sister corporations and are related through a common relationship with the entity that assisted with the purchase of the patents-in-suit at the Delaware auction. Plaintiff fails to establish that either the agency or alter ego theories of jurisdiction apply and can point to no evidence of fraud or inequity between the common entity and the defendants. Plaintiff’s theories of personal jurisdiction do not support further discovery. Moreover, plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint to add the related entities fails for the same reasons set forth above. In addition, allegations in the second complaint fail to provide those entities sought to be joined with notice of a claim against them. Therefore the motion is denied.
