Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 264 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 9198
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 12-574-LPS
`(consolidated)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`)))))))))
`
`ROBERT BOSCH LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ALBEREE PRODUCTS, INC.,
`API KOREA CO., LTD.,
`SAVER AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS, INC.,
`and COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
`
`Third-Party Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ROBERT BOSCH GMBH,
`
`Third-Party Defendant.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF SPECIALLY APPEARING
`THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT ROBERT BOSCH GMBH
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Mark A. Hannemann
`SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
`599 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel.: (212) 848-4000
`
`Rose Cordero Prey
`Ksenia Takhistova
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`
`Dated: December 4, 2015
`1210933 / 39026
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 264 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 9199
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS ......................................................... 1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 1
`
`ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Bosch GmbH is not subject to general jurisdiction in Delaware................ 3
`
`Bosch GmbH is not subject to specific jurisdiction in Delaware ............... 3
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... 5
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 264 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 9200
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009)............................................................................................................ 4
`
`Belden Techs., Inc. v. LS Corp.,
`626 F. Supp. 2d 448 (D. Del. 2009)................................................................................ 2, 3
`
`Bell Atlantic v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007)............................................................................................................ 4
`
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
`471 U.S. 462 (1985)............................................................................................................ 4
`
`C.R. Bard Inc. v. Guidant Corp.,
`997 F. Supp. 556 (D. Del. 1998)......................................................................................... 5
`
`Capital Invs. Grp., Inc. v. Korban,
`C.A. No. 10-115-GMS-SRF, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18798 (D. Del. Feb. 14, 2014)....... 3
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`134 S. Ct. 746 (2014).......................................................................................................... 3
`
`eSpeed, Inc. v. BrokerTec USA, LLC,
`C.A. No. 03-612-KAJ, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19760 (D. Del. Sept. 13, 2004)................ 5
`
`Freres v. SPI Pharma, Inc.,
`629 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D. Del. 2009).................................................................................... 4
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown,
`131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011)........................................................................................................ 3
`
`Hercules Inc. v. Leu Trust & Banking (Bahamas) Ltd.,
`611 A.2d 476 (Del. 1992) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945)............................................................................................................ 4
`
`Isaacs v. Ariz. Bd. Of Regents,
`608 Fed. Appx. 70 (3d Cir. 2015)....................................................................................... 3
`
`Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc.,
`443 F. Supp. 2d 636 (D. Del. 2006).................................................................................... 5
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 264 Filed 12/04/15 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 9201
`
`Moore v. Little Giant Indus., Inc.,
`513 F. Supp. 1043 (D. Del. 1981), aff’d, 681 F.2d 807 (3d Cir. 1982) ...........................2-3
`
`Registered Agents, Ltd v. Registered Agent, Inc.,
`880 F. Supp. 2d 541 (D. Del. 2012).................................................................................... 4
`
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Alcatel S.A.,
`C.A. No. 04-874 GMS, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10194 (D. Del. May 27, 2005) ............... 5
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 264 Filed 12/04/15 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 9202
`
`I.
`
`NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
`
`This is a consolidated patent case brought by Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch LLC”) against
`
`Costco Wholesale Corporation and other defendants for the infringement of patents related to
`
`windshield-wiper blades.
`
`In its Answer and Counterclaims (D.I. 244) to Bosch LLC’s Second
`
`Amended Complaint (D.I. 95), Costco asserted third-party claims against non-party Robert
`
`Bosch GmbH (“Bosch GmbH”). Bosch GmbH specially appears in this case and respectfully
`
`submits this motion to dismiss Costco’s third-party claims against it for lack of personal
`
`jurisdiction and improper service.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`Costco’s claims against Bosch GmbH should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)
`
`and 12(b)(5) because Bosch GmbH is a German corporation that is not subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction here.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Bosch GmbH is not a plaintiff, and has not been a party in this case. Costco filed its
`
`third-party claims against Bosch GmbH, mistakenly labeled as counterclaims, on September 30,
`
`2015 (D.I. 244 at 37–42). Costco waited over eleven months after plaintiff Bosch LLC first
`
`named Costco as a defendant on October 9, 2014 (D.I. 84), to assert these claims. Costco
`
`asserted two counts against Bosch GmbH, one based on a Washington State statute, and the other
`
`for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of patents that
`
`Bosch GmbH does not own (D.I. 244 at 37–42).
`
`In its pleading, Costco averred—correctly—
`
`that Bosch GmbH is a German corporation with its principal place of business in Germany (id. at
`
`37; Ex. 1, Declaration of Bettina Holzwarth (“Holzwarth Decl.”) ¶ 2). Costco did not plead any
`
`jurisdictional facts.
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 264 Filed 12/04/15 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 9203
`
`Bosch GmbH was served in Germany pursuant to the Hague Convention, and received
`
`the papers on November 10, 2015.1 The parties agree that Bosch GmbH’s deadline to respond to
`
`Costco’s third-party claims is December 4, 2015.
`
`Bosch GmbH is a limited liability company authorized and organized under the laws of
`
`Germany, with a principal place of business in Germany. (Ex. 1, Holzwarth Decl. ¶ 2). While
`
`Bosch LLC is, ultimately, its wholly-owned subsidiary, Bosch GmbH is a separate company
`
`from Bosch LLC, maintains its own corporate records that are separate from the corporate
`
`records of Bosch LLC, and does not directly own any interest in Bosch LLC.
`
`(Id. ¶¶ 3–4).
`
`Bosch GmbH is not registered to do business in the State of Delaware, does not own or maintain
`
`any offices or facilities in Delaware, and does not have any employees in Delaware. (Id. ¶¶ 4–5).
`
`Bosch GmbH is not required to and does not maintain a registered agent for service of process in
`
`Delaware. (Id. ¶ 6). Bosch GmbH does not maintain a bank account and has not received a loan
`
`of money in Delaware; it also does not possess any real property there.
`
`(Id. ¶¶ 7–8). Bosch
`
`GmbH does not engage in any regular and systematic sale of products into the State of Delaware.
`
`(Id. ¶ 9).
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`To establish personal jurisdiction over Bosch GmbH in Delaware, Costco must plead
`
`facts to establish both (i) a statutory basis for jurisdiction under the state’s long-arm statute, and
`
`(ii) that the exercise of jurisdiction would comport with due process. Belden Techs., Inc. v. LS
`
`Corp., 626 F. Supp. 2d 448, 455 (D. Del. 2009); see also Moore v. Little Giant Indus., Inc., 513
`
`1
`There is an important mistake in the German translation of the court order appointing a
`special process server in Germany (D.I. 250). The original order states, “APS International, Ltd.,
`including its designated agents, is appointed and authorized to effect service of process on the
`Counter-Defendant, Robert Bosch GmbH,
`in the Federal Republic of Germany,” but
`the
`translation states that APS International, Ltd. “is ordered to be attorney of Robert Bosch GmbH
`for the action.” Bosch GmbH is represented in this action only by the undersigned counsel,
`specially appearing to contest personal jurisdiction.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 264 Filed 12/04/15 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 9204
`
`F. Supp. 1043, 1046 (D. Del. 1981), aff’d, 681 F.2d 807 (3d Cir. 1982). Courts in Delaware
`
`construe its long-arm statute as “confer[ring] jurisdiction to the maximum extent possible under
`
`the Due Process Clause.” Belden Techs., 626 F. Supp. 2d at 455 n.3 (quoting Hercules Inc. v.
`
`Leu Trust & Banking (Bahamas) Ltd., 611 A.2d 476, 480–81 (Del. 1992) (citations omitted)).
`
`Thus, the two-part inquiry collapses into a due-process analysis of whether courts in Delaware
`
`may exert general or specific jurisdiction over Bosch GmbH.
`
`1.
`
`Bosch GmbH is not subject to general jurisdiction in Delaware
`
`A court can exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation only when the
`
`corporation’s “affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render [it]
`
`essentially at home in the forum State.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 761 (2014)
`
`(quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011)); see
`
`Isaacs v. Ariz. Bd. Of Regents, 608 Fed. Appx. 70, 74–75 (3d Cir. 2015) (applying Daimler and
`
`finding no jurisdiction over the foreign defendants). Costco did not plead any facts to show that
`
`Bosch GmbH is or has been present in Delaware, much less that such presence is “continuous
`
`and systematic” or that Bosch GmbH is “essentially at home” in Delaware. (D.I. 244 at 37–42).
`
`And as described in the declaration supporting this motion (Ex. 1, Holzwarth Decl. ¶¶ 2–9)
`
`Bosch GmbH in fact has no presence in Delaware.
`
`2.
`
`Bosch GmbH is not subject to specific jurisdiction in Delaware
`
`Delaware’s long-arm statute authorizes the courts to exercise specific personal
`
`jurisdiction over foreign corporations whose acts have an effect in Delaware, to the maximum
`
`extent allowed by the due process. E.g., Capital Invs. Grp., Inc. v. Korban, C.A. No. 10-115-
`
`GMS-SRF, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18798, at *12–13 (D. Del. Feb. 14, 2014); Belden Techs., 626
`
`F. Supp. 2d at 455 n.3. An exercise of specific jurisdiction satisfies due process where (1) the
`
`defendant has purposefully directed his activities at the forum state or purposefully availed
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 264 Filed 12/04/15 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 9205
`
`himself of the privilege of conducting business in that state, and (2) when the cause of action
`
`“arises out of” or “relates to” the defendant’s contacts with the forum, even if those contacts are
`
`isolated. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472–73 (1985) (citing Int’l Shoe
`
`Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945)).
`
`Costco does not make any allegations in its third-party complaint against Bosch GmbH
`
`that explicitly relate Bosch GmbH to Delaware. The complaint should be dismissed for lack of
`
`specific personal
`
`jurisdiction for that reason alone.
`
`See, e.g., Registered Agents, Ltd v.
`
`Registered Agent, Inc., 880 F. Supp. 2d 541, 547 (D. Del. 2012) (granting motion to dismiss for
`
`lack of personal
`
`jurisdiction when “plaintiff has failed to present any facts showing that
`
`defendant transacts, or has contracted to transact, any business within Delaware”); Freres v. SPI
`
`Pharma, Inc., 629 F. Supp. 2d 374, 386 (D. Del. 2009) (“To meet the requirements of [specific
`
`jurisdiction provisions] §§ 3104(c)(1)–(3), the conduct of the defendant must be directed at the
`
`residents of Delaware and the protections of Delaware laws.”).
`
`Costco did allege that Bosch GmbH “caused Bosch LLC to file objectively baseless
`
`lawsuit claims against Costco” (D.I. 244 at 38–39, ¶ 12). Assuming that the claims Costco
`
`referred to are those made by Bosch LLC in this action, Costco may argue that this allegation
`
`supports the existence of personal jurisdiction over Bosch GmbH in Delaware, even though the
`
`complaint explicitly relates this alleged conduct to Washington State, not to Delaware.
`
`However, the complaint includes no alleged facts that make it plausible that Bosch
`
`GmbH directed Bosch LLC as Costco alleges, so the allegation of conspiratorial direction should
`
`be ignored. Cf. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements
`
`of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice” to state a claim for
`
`relief) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007)).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 264 Filed 12/04/15 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 9206
`
`Moreover, Costco’s allegations on this point, as they relate to personal jurisdiction, boil
`
`down to the argument that Bosch GmbH should be subject to jurisdiction in Delaware based on
`
`only the Delaware actions of its subsidiary corporation, Bosch LLC. This argument is contrary
`
`to law. See C.R. Bard Inc. v. Guidant Corp., 997 F. Supp. 556, 559–61 (D. Del. 1998) (no
`
`agency relationship found between the parent company and its subsidiary through which actions
`
`of the subsidiary could be attributed to the parent to establish specific jurisdiction over the
`
`parent); see also, e.g., Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 443 F. Supp. 2d 636, 644–46 (D.
`
`Del. 2006); Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Alcatel S.A., C.A. No. 04-874 GMS, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`10194, at *7–13 (D. Del. May 27, 2005); eSpeed, Inc. v. BrokerTec USA, LLC, C.A. No. 03-612-
`
`KAJ, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19760, at *13 (D. Del. Sept. 13, 2004).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Robert Bosch GmbH is a German corporation with no presence in Delaware, and it was
`
`served in Germany. Costco’s claims against Bosch GmbH, one an affirmative claim under
`
`Washington State law, and the other a declaratory judgment action concerning patents that Bosch
`
`GmbH does not own, should therefore be dismissed.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00574-LPS Document 264 Filed 12/04/15 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 9207
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
`
`By: /s/ David E. Moore
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu A. Palapura (#5370)
`Stephanie E. O’Byrne (#4446)
`Hercules Plaza, 6th Floor
`1313 N. Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 984-6000
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`sobyrne@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Mark A. Hannemann
`SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
`599 Lexington Ave
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel.: (212) 848-4000
`
`Rose Cordero Prey
`Ksenia Takhistova
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Tel.: (212) 425-7200
`
`Dated: December 4, 2015
`1210933 / 39026
`
`6
`
`