Delaware Patent Litigation Report : Delaware Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Morris James Law Firm : Delaware Patent Litigation Report

The disputed technology involves spray-dried mannitol products.  The court finds that in the absence of evidence that the corporate parent and other do-defendants closely operated together the parent’s ties are insufficient to impose personal jurisdiction over it under an agency theory.  There is no evidence that co-defendants ever made, labeled or packaged the accused product in Delaware.  Despite evidence that some accused product was sent to Delaware, moving defendants did not ship or import the accused product into Delaware.  Transportation arrangements were under the control of non-moving defendant SPI.  There has been an insufficient showing that two visits to Delaware to visit plants by a managing director of some of the moving defendants were tied to the disputed claims.  Specific jurisdiction requires an act to have occurred in Delaware and that the claims arose out of that act.  As for general jurisdiction, there is no evidence the moving defendants were involved in any business in Delaware or regularly solicited customers in Delaware, or derived substantial revenue from Delaware.  Jurisdiction will not exist over a foreign entity when its alleged infringing product came into the forum state through the unilateral acts of a third party who had no pre-existing relationship.