Friday, August 26, 2011
Plaintiffs' Purchase of Accused Product in Forum State Does Not Support Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Over Defendant
Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' infringement action for lack of personal jurisdiction was granted where defendant discovered that a relative of one of plaintiff's employees was the purchaser of defendant's product in the forum. "Defendant argues Plaintiffs engaged in 'subterfuge' in an effort to create jurisdiction. Plaintiffs contend the purchase was not made to create jurisdiction but was for the purpose of establishing a solid factual basis for filing the Complaint through a physical examination of the accused device. Upon consideration, the Court finds that this one sale of the allegedly infringing product linking Defendant to South Carolina cannot form the basis for specific jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant did not purposefully avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities in South Carolina. . . . Plaintiffs admit that they instigated the one sale of the allegedly infringing product that has reached South Carolina for the purpose of this litigation — to form a solid factual basis for the Complaint."
Van Romer, et. al. v. Argonaut Inflatable Research and Engineering Inc., 8-10-cv-02649 (SCD August 24, 2011, Order) (Austin, M.J.)