Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

Hope Family Vineyards Pty, Ltd., v. Hope Wine, LLC, No. 08 C 3246, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 11, 2008) (Lindberg, J.).

Judge Lindberg granted defendant’s §1404(a) motion to transfer to the Central District of California. Plaintiff was an Australian entity with its principal place of business in Australia. Its only direct connection to the Northern District was that its exclusive U.S. distributor was headquartered in Illinois. The distributor, however, was not a party to the suit. The Court therefore, gave plaintiff’s choice of forum minimal deference.

Defendant was a California entity with its principal place of business in the Central District of California. While defendant sold its wine on the internet, 90% of its sales were in California, and only 5% over the internet. Of that 5%, only four sales were to Illinois, including one to plaintiff’s distributor. Based on these facts, the alleged harm and confusion occurred in California, not Illinois.

Finally, transfer would increase the ease of access to the evidence because defendant, its documents and witnesses were all in California, and plaintiff would have to travel from Australia regardless of which district court heard the case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Judge Lindberg granted individual defendants Mr. and Ms. Greiling's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Both Greilings were German citizens and residents. Mr. Greiling was previously Managing Director of plaintiff's parent company, but no longer held that role. First, the Court held that the Greilings were not amenable to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) nationwide service of process because the Lanham Act, which created federal question jurisdiction in this trade secret misappropriation case, did not provide for nationwide service, as some acts do. As a result, the Greilings' general contacts with the United States were irrelevant. The issue was whether the Greilings had sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois for specific jurisdiction.

The Court did not have specific jurisdiction over Ms. Greiling because she had no contacts with Illinois. She had never been to or conducted business in Illinois and she had no other attachments to Illinois.

Mr. Greiling was a closer question, but the Court held that it lacked specific jurisdiction over him as well. Mr. Greiling was formerly Managing Director of plaintiff's parent entity, and plaintiff was an Illinois entity. But Mr. Greiling was no longer employed by plaintiff's parent. And plaintiff provided no facts indicating that Mr. Greiling had any contacts with Illinois during the time relevant to the case.

The Court also denied plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff had not made a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction and jurisdictional discovery was not appropriate without the prima facie showing of jurisdiction.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Timebase Pty Ltd. v. Thomson Corp., No. 07 C 460, 2007 WL 772946 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2007) (Lindberg, Sen. J.).

Judge Lindberg transferred this patent case to the District of Minnesota because all of the relevant documents and witnesses reside within that district or its subpoena power, while the dispute has no apparent unique connection to Illinois.  The software at issue, Westlaw's PastStat Locator, was researched, designed and developed in Minnesota and the related documents were still there.  Additionally, although the PastStat Locator can be accessed in any state, including Illinois, the hardware and software necessary to operate it are located in Minnesota.  Finally, 24 of the 25 witnesses identified as related to defendant are within the D. Minn. or its subpoena power.  And plaintiff's witnesses are in Australia, so whether they flew to Illinois or Minnesota was a minor difference to them at most.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks