The court denied defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's declaratory relief claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant's CFO wrote a letter to plaintiff stating in part: "[I]t would appear that [plaintiff] is selling [a product] that is a direct copy of [defendant's] patented [product]. . . . [I]t is requested that [plaintiff] hand over all records of any sales of this [product] since January 15, 2006, the customers’ names and contact details, dollar amounts and any open orders, as well as who may may [sic] contracted for its manufacture. Failure to promptly respond to this very serious breach of our patent rights will not be tolerated." "Given [defendant's CFO's] statements requesting [plaintiff's] customer information, it would have been reasonable for [plaintiff] to be concerned that [defendant] planned to approach its customers and suggest that its product infringed [defendant's] patent. It also was reasonable for [plaintiff] to fear that a suit over the [patent-in-suit] was imminent. . . . This amounts to an actual controversy between the parties."
Triteq Lock & Security, LLC v. HMC Holdings, LLC, 1-11-cv-00843 (ILND July 5, 2011, Order) (Leinenweber, J.)