Free Motion to Dismiss - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04820-MMC

Document 67-2

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Kevin C. McCann (SB# 120874) PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 55 Second Street Twenty-Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 Email: [email protected] Robert M. Masters (DC Bar No. 435623) (pro hac vice) Timothy P. Cremen (DC Bar No. 478705) (pro hac vice) Bhaskar Kakarla (DC Bar No. 488976) (pro hac vice) PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP 875 15th St., N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 551-1700 Facsimile: (202) 551-1705 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant AEROMECHANICAL SERVICES LTD.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

STAR NAVIGATION SYSTEMS GROUP LTD., Plaintiff, v. AEROMECHANICAL SERVICES LTD., Defendant.

CASE NO. C 07-4820 (MMC) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AEROMECHANICAL SERVICES LTD.'S MOTION TO DISMISS STAR NAVIGATION SYSTEMS GROUP, LTD.'S COMPLAINT Date: June 20, 2008 Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom 7, 19th Floor Honorable Maxine M. Chesney

Case No. C 07-4820 (MMC)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AEROMECHANICAL SERVICES LTD.'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Case 3:07-cv-04820-MMC

Document 67-2

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Star Navigation Systems Group Ltd.'s ("Star") Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED under: (1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2); (2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7); and (3) this Court's inherent powers to control its docket. Star's Second Amended Complaint is dismissed under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) because this Court cannot reasonably be said to have personal jurisdiction over AMS. AMS has no corporate presence, and conducts no business in California. This Court cannot be said to have general jurisdiction over AMS, because AMS's contacts with the forum are not "substantial, continuous and systematic" (Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir. 2001)), and do not "`approximate physical presence' in the forum state" (Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004)). Nor can this Court be said to have specific jurisdiction over AMS because: (1) AMS has not purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities in California; (2) Star's claim does not arise out of, or result from, AMS's activities in California; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction over AMS is not reasonable. Pennington Seed. Inc. v. Produce Exchange No. 299, 457 F.3d 1334, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Star's Second Amended Complaint is also dismissed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) because Star, which is only a licensee, has failed to join both of the owners of the `852 Patent by April 30, 2008 in accordance with this Court's April 8, 2008 Order. Although Viraf Kapadia joined Star as a plaintiff in this action, Hillary Vieira did not. Star therefore was required to move to join Mr. Vieira as an "involuntary plaintiff" under Rule 19(a)(2). Star did not do so move the Court, instead simply labeling Mr. Vieira as an "involuntary plaintiff" in its Second Amended Complaint. Nor is it clear that Star would be able to join Mr. Vieira until the Canadian litigation involving the status of the License Agreement between the co-owners and Star is resolved. Star's Second Amended Complaint is also dismissed under this Court's inherent powers to control its docket because the existence of Star's license to the `852 Patent (and thus the possibility of this action continuing) is currently being litigated in Canada. If the Canadian -1Case No. C 07-4820 (MMC) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AEROMECHANICAL SERVICES LTD.'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Case 3:07-cv-04820-MMC

Document 67-2

Filed 05/12/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

litigation determines that Star's license has been revoked, it cannot proceed with this infringement litigation, and the resources that the court and parties' will have committed to this action will have been wasted.

Dated: June __, 2008

By: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney U.S. District Judge

_____

-2Case No. C 07-4820 (MMC)

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING AEROMECHANICAL SERVICES LTD.'S MOTION TO DISMISS