By David Wille
Overall, IP cases present many interesting jurisdictional issues, many of which have not been resolved. The variety of jurisdictional theories potentially applicable to IP cases gives plaintiffs several jurisdictional options in many factual scenarios. One factor transcends all of the theories, however--the need for evidence. A plaintiff faced with a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction needs to move for and take discovery on the jurisdictional issues in the case. Such discovery will raise costs and delay consideration of the merits of the case. In the absence of such discovery, however, the plaintiff may find one or more defendants dismissed from the case.This Paper has presented suggestions as to the kinds of information that a plaintiff should seek when pursuing personal jurisdiction under a particular theory. Of course, different states have varying customs as to which information is most important. Plaintiffs should certainly consult jurisdictional decisions under state long-arm statutes in non-IP cases to determine which factors are most important. As both plaintiffs and defendants continue to act strategically in the area of personal jurisdiction, some of these factors will attain greater or lesser prominence in the IP context. As some of the uncertainties in personal jurisdiction doctrine are resolved, litigation over the issue of personal jurisdiction should hopefully become less frequent and more predictable.
For further information please contact Mitch Lukin.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
