Jurisdiction is proper where accused product sold to Delaware company is sold in components to Delaware plants
W. L. Gore & Associates, Inc., et al. v.Label Technologies, Inc., C.A. No. 08-111-GMS, May 15 , 2009.
Sleet, C. J. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied. Based on that ruling, plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery is denied as moot.
Both plaintiff and defendant manufacture and sell, among other things, vents for motor vehicle lamps. Defendant is a Georgia corporation with its principal place of business located in Georgia and has never operated an office in Delaware. Defendant is not licensed to conduct business in Delaware and has never had any officers or employees here. However, defendant sells its product to a Delaware company which provides components and parts and related services directly to a Delaware automobile assembly plant. Defendant’s actions satisfy §§ 3104(c)(1) and (c)(4) of the Delaware Long Arm Statue as well as due process requirements. Therefore, jurisdiction is proper. As a result, additional jurisdictional discovery is not necessary and plaintiff’s request is denied as moot.
