Knowledge That Products Will be Sold in Texas Insufficient to Confer Personal Jurisdiction

The court granted defendant's renewed motion to dismiss plaintiff's infringement action for lack of personal jurisdiction. "[Defendant] knows, with reasonable certainty, that its chips will end up in the United States marketplace, including, by inference, in Texas. . . . [N]o evidence demonstrates that any of [defendant's] conduct or activity is any more specifically directed at this state than it is at the North American market as a whole. Critically, none of the deposition testimony presented by [plaintiff] shows any evidence to suggest that [defendant] purposefully targets its business conduct specifically at Texas or that the substantial Texas market for televisions is of any particular focus. A rational belief that a component or product will eventually end up in a particular state -- even if that belief amounts to a substantial certainty -- does not, by itself, amount to purposeful conduct nor 'manifest an intention to submit to the power of a sovereign.' . . . Although . . . [defendant] knowingly supplies parts for televisions ultimately destined for the United States, the court finds no direct conduct, connection, or purposeful availment of Texas's laws that justifies the exercise of personal jurisdiction in Texas, as opposed to any other state in the union. After careful search for any evidence showing an articulable connection to this state, the facts of this case simply do not suffice to establish the minimum contacts required to exercise jurisdiction over [defendant] in Texas under any current theory of specific personal jurisdiction."

Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. v. Amtran Technology Co., Ltd., et al, 1-12-cv-00644 (TXWD March 19, 2014, Order) (Yeakel, J.)