United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER (RESOLVES DOC.
R. ADAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss this
matter for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the
alternative transfer the matter. Doc. 22. The motion to
dismiss is GRANTED. This matter is hereby DISMISSED.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Xtreme Plastics, LLC (“Xtreme”) filed this action
on October 14, 2016 in the Northern District of Ohio against
CATCHY, Inc. (“Catchy”) and G&G Landscape and
Hardscape, Inc. (“G&G”). Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants Catchy and G&G are engaged in patent
infringement by producing and selling their “Catchy
Can” refuse container.
Incredible Solutions, LLC (“Incredible”)
contacted Catchy under the auspices of contracting to sell
the “Catchy Can” in Ohio. After almost three
months of negotiations, Catchy and Incredible entered into a
confidentiality agreement. However, Catchy and Incredible did
not form any sales partnership proposal. Following the failed
negotiations, Xtreme filed suit alleging that Catchy
possesses minimum contacts with Ohio through the attempted
transaction of business and expectations that Catchy's
products will reach the Northern District of Ohio through the
stream of commerce.
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
and an alternative motion to transfer venue. Defendants'
motion claims a lack of sufficient contacts to establish
personal jurisdiction and an inconvenient forum under 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a). Defendants have also moved for
dismissal of Defendant G&G. Xtreme has opposed the motion
and Defendants have replied.
Court now resolves the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD & ANALYSIS
Circuit law applies for determining jurisdiction in patent
law claims. E.g. Avocent v. Huntsville Corp. v. Aten
Int'l Co., Ltd., 552 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir.
2008). The Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing
jurisdiction. American Greetings Corp. v. Cohn, 839
F.2d 1164, 1168 (6th Cir. 1988). “Determining whether
personal jurisdiction exists over an out-of-state defendant
involves two inquiries: whether a forum state's long-arm
statute permits service of process, and whether assertion of
jurisdiction would violate due process.” Avocent
Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Intern. Co., 552 F.3d 1324,
1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Court need not conduct a due
process analysis as the matter can be determined solely
through analyzing Ohio's long-arm statute.
relevant portions of Ohio's long-arm statute that
Plaintiff relies on for jurisdiction state that:
A) A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person
who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action
arising from the person's:
(1) Transacting any business in this state;
(2) Contracting to supply services or goods in this state;
(3) Causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this