Case 1:11-cv-00443-RGA Document 89 Filed 09/10/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1276

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

MYKEY TECHNOLOGY INC., Plaintiff,

v.
CPR TOLLS INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 11-443-RGA

ORDER

In this patent infringement lawsuit, the defendant ICS has filed a motion to dismiss for lack ofpersonaljurisdiction. (D.I. 47). The Court allowedjurisdictional discovery, which has resulted in a clarification of the issue. (D.I. 70, 71). The defendant is not a Delaware corporation. The defendant has not sold the infringing products in Delaware. There is no evidence that the infringing products have ever been shipped to Delaware. The plaintiff concedes that there is no general jurisdiction over the defendant. The plaintiff argues that there is specific jurisdiction over the defendant because it has offered to sell the infringing products to Delawareans. It has done this by having an interactive website over which a Delawarean could have purchased the infringing products. This is not a sufficient basis on which to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. See AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp., 2012 WL 3631230, *1 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2012) (setting forth specific jurisdiction standard); id. at *5 ("case is not a close call"). Thus, this lrday of September 2012, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (D.I. 47) is GRANTED.

""'

Case 1:11-cv-00443-RGA Document 89 Filed 09/10/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1277

2. Defendant ICS's motion to transfer (D.I. 79) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

Case 1:11-cv-00443-RGA Document 90 Filed 09/10/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1278

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

! f

MYKEY TECHNOLOGY INC., Plaintiff, v. CPR TOLLS INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 11-443-RGA

ORDER
The Plaintiff has moved to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. (D.I. 72). The Plaintiff represents that the Defendants CPR Tools, Inc., and Logicube, Inc., do not object to this request. Indeed, the only opposition has been from the third defendant, Intelligent Computer Solutions, Inc. That objection is now moot as Intelligent Computer Systems has been dismissed from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs request to transfer was made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). While under the statute as recently amended, venue could be changed based solely on the agreement of the parties, the amendment's effective date means that it does not apply to this case. The jurisdictional allegations in the Plaintiffs Brief (D.I. 73) as to why there would be personal jursidiction in Maryland are rather sparse, but they are also uncontested by Defendants CPR Tools and Logicube. It appears that this is a civil action that could have been brought in the District of Maryland. Thus, this

j12_ day of September 2012, the motion to transfer (D.I. 72) is GRANTED,

th-

Case 1:11-cv-00443-RGA Document 90 Filed 09/10/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1279

and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), the case against Defendants CPR Tools, Inc., and Logicube, Inc. is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.