Free Memorandum and Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—01338-JJF Document 999 Filed 04/18/2008 Page1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. and :
HONEYWELL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES, :
INC. , :
Plaintiffs, :
v. E Civil Action No. 04-1338-JJF
APPLE COMPUTER, INC., et al., E CONSOLIDATED CASE
Defendants. Z
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction (D.I. 536) filed by Defendant InnoLux
Display Corporation (“InnoLux"). For the reasons discussed, the
Court will order jurisdictional discovery.
I. Parties’ Contentions and Relevant Facts
InnoLux is a corporation organized under the laws of Taiwan
with its principle place of business in Chu—nan, Taiwan. Hon Hai
Corporation (“Hon Hai") owns 100% of shares of Foxconn, 10% of
InnoLux, and 11% of Foxconn Technology (“FT"). FT is a Delaware
Corporation with a website that allows Delaware residents to
purchase its products. Hon Hai earns profits from the
manufacturing of “everything from PCs for Hewlett—Packard to cell
phones for Nokia and PlayStation 2 game consules for Sony" (many
of the end—products associated with this action). (D.I. 571 at
Exh. L.) Plaintiffs, Honeywell International Inc., and Honeywell
Intellectual Properties Inc. (collectively, “Honeywell") contend
that Hon Hai uses InnoLux as its source for LCD panels, which are

Case 1:04-cv—O1338-JJF Document 999 Filed O4/18/2008 Page 2 of 4
then distributed by FT through its “extensive distribution
channels” across the United States.
Honeywell further contends that InnoLux knowingly benefits
from its customers' distribution systems, as InnoLux admits that
its sells LCD monitors to HP, Dell, ViewSonic, Acer and LG, all
of whom are well—known distributors throughout the US market,
including Delaware. Honeywell also contends that an Audiovox DVD
player containing an InnoLux LCD module that infringes the patent
at issue was purchased from Amazon.com, and shipped to New
Mexico. Amazon.com is accessible to purchasers throughout the
United States.
InnoLux contends that its LCD modules are sold in Asia for
use in Asia, and that once these modules are sold, InnoLux has no
direct knowledge of and no control over where its customers use
or sell its LCD modules. InnoLux admits that it sells LCD
monitors to HP, Dell, ViewSonic, Acer and LG, companies that
distribute their products throughout the United States, but
points out that those monitors are not at issue in this
litigation. InnoLux contends that Honeywell has not shown the
presence of any infringing InnoLux LCD modules in Delaware, only
in New Mexico, and further contends that, even if Honeywell could
show a product in Delaware containing the infringing module,
Honeywell cannot establish InnoLux’s intent or purpose to serve
the Delaware market.
2

Case 1:04-cv—O1338-JJF Document 999 Filed 04/18/2008 Page 3 of 4
II. Discussion
In reviewing a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,
district courts are advised to grant plaintiff’s requests for
jurisdictional discovery, especially when related to questions of
whether a corporate defendant does business in the forum state,
unless the plaintiff’s claim is “clearly frivolous." Mass. Sch.
of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass’n, 107 F.3d 1026, 1042 (3d
Cir. 1997). A claim is not clearly frivolous if the plaintiff
has stated with reasonable particularity the basis for
jurisdiction, and the “court [is] satisfied that there is some
indication that this particular defendant is amenable to suit in
this forum " Toys “R" Us, Inc. v. Step Two, S.A., 318 F.3d 446,
456 (3d Cir. 2003); Hansen v. Neumueller GmbH, 163 F.R.D. 471,
474 (D. Del. 1995).
The Court concludes that Honeywell has set forth a prima
facie showing of personal jurisdiction over InnoLux, as
Honeywell’s allegations go beyond bare assertions that InnoLux
transacts business in the State of Delaware. Accordingly, the
Court will issue an order for jurisdictional discovery, and will
deny InnoLux’s motion to dismiss with leave to renew following
the completion of jurisdictional discovery.
&Q
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs are permitted to conduct discovery limited
3

Case 1:04-cv—O1338-JJF Document 999 Filed O4/18/2008 Page 4 of 4
to the issue of the Court's jurisdiction over Defendant
InnoLux Display Corporation.
2. Defendant InnoLux Display Corporation's Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (D.I. 536) is
DENIED with Leave to Renew following the completion of
jurisdictional discovery in this action.
April l8[ 2008 '§§·rm2_p;% '{JAJWAED ga"; ,
DATE TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4