Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 29157
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AX WIRELESS LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-280-RWS-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`LENOVO GROUP LIMITED,
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`AX WIRELESS’S OPPOSITION TO LENOVO GROUP LIMITED’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
`JURISDICTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS DIRECT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 29158
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................1
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`The Court Has Personal Jurisdiction Over LGL ......................................................2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Legal Standard .............................................................................................2
`
`The Stream of Commerce ............................................................................3
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`LGL bought PC HK and Motorola to enter the US market
`and enhance its US presence ............................................................3
`
`LGL acts with its subsidiaries as one group in the US
`market ..............................................................................................5
`
`LGL Purposefully Avails Itself of the US Market Through Its
`Website ......................................................................................................12
`
`Motorola’s and Lenovo US’s Purposeful Contacts Are Imputable
`to LGL ........................................................................................................15
`
`LGL Is the Alter Ego of Lenovo US and of Motorola ...............................17
`
`B.
`
`AX Wireless Plausibly Stated Patent-Infringement Claims Against LGL ............20
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Legal Standard ...........................................................................................20
`
`AX Wireless Adequately Alleged That LGL Is Liable for Its
`Subsidiaries’ Patent Infringement ..............................................................21
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................21
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 29159
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`3G Licensing, S.A. v. Lenovo Group Ltd.,
`No. 17-cv-84, 2019 WL 3947459 (D. Del. Aug. 22, 2019) ........................................................ 5
`
`A. Stucki Co. v. Worthington Indus., Inc.,
`849 F.2d 593 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................... 21
`
`ACQIS LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd.,
`572 F. Supp. 3d 291 (W.D. Tex. 2021) .............................................................................. passim
`
`Admar Int’l, Inc. v. Eastrock, L.L.C.,
`18 F.4th 783 (5th Cir. 2021) ...................................................................................................... 12
`
`B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. Zodiac Aerospace,
`No. 2:16-cv-01417, 2018 WL 7140299 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2018),
`report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 354883 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2019) ................... 7
`
`Berry v. Lee,
`428 F. Supp. 2d 546 (N.D. Tex. 2006) ...................................................................................... 17
`
`Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp.,
`21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`Brooks & Baker, L.L.C. v. Flambeau, Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-146, 2011 WL 4591905 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2011) ................................................ 17
`
`Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale,
`542 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co.,
`792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc.,
`629 F. Supp. 2d 338 (D. Del. 2009) .......................................................................................... 15
`
`Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter,
`224 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2000) ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 15
`
`Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`Electro Med. Equip. Ltd. v. Hamilton Med. AG,
`No. 99-cv-579, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18483 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 1999) ................................. 16
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 29160
`
`
`Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int’l, LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`No. 3:17-cv-1827, 2018 WL 3330022 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2018) ........................................... 17
`
`Hargrave v. Fibreboard Corp.,
`710 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1983) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945) .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`J. Fitzpatrick & Co. v. Solna, Inc.,
`No. 89-cv-2668, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16968 (D.N.J. Nov. 4, 1991) .................................... 16
`
`Lone Star Fund V (US), LP v. Barclays Bank PLC,
`594 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.,
`681 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 2
`
`Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC,
`190 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999) ..................................................................................................... 12
`
`Molina-Aranda v. Black Magic Enters., L.L.C.,
`983 F.3d 779 (5th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`Nuance Commc’ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House,
`626 F.3d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................... 3, 4
`
`Orange Elec. Co. v. Autel Intelligent Tech. Corp.,
`No. 2:21-cv-240, 2022 WL 4368160 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 21, 2022) .............................. 4, 11, 13, 18
`
`Sorensen v. Black & Decker Corp.,
`No. 06-cv-1572, 2007 WL 951839 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2007) .................................................. 21
`
`Stuart v. Spademan,
`772 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir. 1985) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`Two-Way Media LLC v. Akamai Techs., Inc.,
`No. CC-8-116, 2009 WL 10697544 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2009) ................................................. 21
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................. 20
`
`Viskase Cos. v. World Pac Int’l AG,
`710 F. Supp. 2d 754 (N.D. Ill. 2010) ......................................................................................... 15
`
`Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.,
`952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) .......................................................................................... 12
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 29161
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant Lenovo Group Ltd.’s (“LGL”) motion should be denied. On very similar facts,
`
`the Western District of Texas concluded that LGL was subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas.
`
`See ACQIS LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd., 572 F. Supp. 3d 291, 305-07 (W.D. Tex. 2021). Yet LGL
`
`moves to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction even though it involves the same prod-
`
`ucts, the same entities acting in consort, and the same contacts with the United States and with
`
`Texas. LGL’s points of distinction between that case and this one are irrelevant.
`
`Simply put, LGL is subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas. LGL and its subsidiaries op-
`
`erate as one entity, the “Lenovo Group” or “Lenovo,” that blurs the corporate lines between LGL
`
`and its subsidiaries. This oneness is evident from the way Lenovo presents itself to investors and
`
`the public, the way it structures its management, and the way it operates internally. Indeed,
`
`Ex. 1,
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`. LGL accuses AX Wireless of “manipulat[ing] venue,” but it
`
`is LGL that is manipulating venue by insisting that the Court observe corporate formalities that
`
`LGL’s own public statements and daily operations ignore. As ACQIS made clear, LGL cannot rely
`
`on papered formalities to evade this Court's jurisdiction.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`AX Wireless sued LGL on July 22, 2022, asserting that it infringes eight patents. ECF
`
`No. 1. LGL moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a
`
`claim. Docket No. 25. AX Wireless then amended its complaint, mooting the motion to dismiss,
`
`and LGL moved to dismiss again on the same grounds. ECF Nos. 29, 30, 35.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 29162
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Court Has Personal Jurisdiction Over LGL
`
`This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over LGL for four independent reasons:
`
`(1) LGL acts in consort with its subsidiaries to deliver products into the United States market,
`
`subjecting it to personal jurisdiction here under a stream-of-commerce theory; (2) LGL purpose-
`
`fully avails itself of the United States market by conducting business over the Internet with cus-
`
`tomers here; (3) LGL’s subsidiaries’ contacts, including those of Lenovo US and Motorola, are
`
`imputable to LGL because the subsidiaries serve as LGL’s distribution agents; and (4) LGL is an
`
`alter ego of its subsidiaries. The Western District of Texas already adopted the first and third rea-
`
`sons and exercised personal jurisdiction over LGL less than two years ago. See ACQIS,
`
`572 F.Supp.3d at 305-07. The second and fourth rely on the same facts. This Court should similarly
`
`hold LGL to its public statements portraying the Lenovo Group as a single company and deny
`
`LGL’s motion.
`
`1.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`Federal Circuit law governs personal jurisdiction in patent cases. Celgard, LLC v. SK In-
`
`novation Co., 792 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Rule 4(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure applies to establish personal jurisdiction where a foreign defendant lacks substantial
`
`contacts with any single state but has sufficient contacts with the United States as a whole. Merial
`
`Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 681 F.3d 1283, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The rule “allow[s] district courts to exer-
`
`cise personal jurisdiction even if the defendant’s contacts with the forum state would not support
`
`jurisdiction under the state’s long-arm statute, as long as (1) the plaintiff’s claim arises under fed-
`
`eral law, (2) the defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in the courts of any state, and (3)
`
`the exercise of jurisdiction satisfies due process requirements.” Id.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 29163
`
`
`To satisfy due process, a defendant must have “certain minimum contacts with [the forum]
`
`such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
`
`justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quotations omitted). “The Fed-
`
`eral Circuit applies a three prong test to determine if specific jurisdiction exists: (1) whether the
`
`defendant purposefully directed activities at residents of the forum; (2) whether the claim arises
`
`out of or relates to those activities; and (3) whether assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable
`
`and fair.” Nuance Commc’ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`The plaintiff bears the burden to show that the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum
`
`under the first two prongs. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`If the plaintiff satisfies that burden, it shifts to the defendant to prove unreasonableness. Id.
`
`“When the district court’s determination of personal jurisdiction is based on affidavits and
`
`other written materials, and no jurisdictional hearing is conducted, the plaintiff usually bears only
`
`a prima facie burden.” Celgard, 792 F.3d at 1378. “To make that showing, [the plaintiff] need only
`
`demonstrate facts that, if true, would support jurisdiction over the Defendants.” Campbell Pet Co.
`
`v. Miale, 542 F.3d 879, 888 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). “Unless directly contravened, [the
`
`plaintiff’s] version of the facts is taken as true, and conflicts between the facts contained in decla-
`
`rations submitted by the two sides must be resolved in [the plaintiff’s] favor for purposes of de-
`
`ciding whether a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction exists.” Id.
`
`2.
`
`The Stream of Commerce
`a.
`
`LGL bought PC HK and Motorola to enter the US market and
`enhance its US presence
`
`The Lenovo Group, with LGL at its head, operates together to manufacture, sell, and dis-
`
`tribute the accused products around the world, including in the United States. LGL therefore acts
`
`in consort with its subsidiaries to place the accused products in the stream of commerce, knowing
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 29164
`
`
`that those products are destined for the US, making its conduct and connections with the forum
`
`such that it “should reasonably have anticipated being brought into court there.” Beverly Hills Fan
`
`Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1994). When, as here, foreign com-
`
`panies portray themselves and their subsidiaries as a single company operating across national
`
`borders, sharing a global management team, and importing products into the United States, the
`
`Federal Circuit has exercised personal jurisdiction over the importer on a stream-of-commerce
`
`theory. Nuance, 626 F.3d at 1234-35. Similarly, this Court has found personal jurisdiction over a
`
`foreign parent company under such a stream-of-commerce theory. See Orange Elec. Co. v. Autel
`
`Intelligent Tech. Corp., No. 2:21-cv-240, 2022 WL 4368160, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 21, 2022)
`
`(finding personal jurisdiction over a defendant Autel ITC under a stream of commerce theory be-
`
`cause Autel ITC specifically targeted the US by selling products to a wholly owned subsidiary for
`
`distribution in the US). The Court should reach the same outcome here.
`
`LGL, through the Lenovo Group, specifically targets the US market.
`
`. Ex. 1,
`
`Ex. 2,
`
`.
`
`. Ex. 1
`
`; Ex. 2
`
`.
`
`
`
`;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. 1
`
`. LGL then expanded its US presence by acquiring
`
`Motorola in 2014 for about $3 billion, including nearly 520 million shares of LGL stock, and en-
`
`tering the mobile-products market in the US. Ex. 3, Lenovo Press Release, Oct. 30, 2014; Ex. 4,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 29165
`
`
`.1 At the time of the acqui-
`
`sition, LGL’s CEO Yang Yuanqing stated, “Lenovo has a clear strategy, great global scale, and
`
`proven operational excellence. Motorola brings a strong presence in the U.S. and other mature
`
`markets, great carrier relationships, an iconic brand, a strong IP portfolio and an incredibly talented
`
`team. This is a winning combination.” Ex. 3.
`
`Indeed, Texas courts have already exercised personal jurisdiction over LGL. Under a
`
`stream of commerce theory, the ACQIS court agreed that LGL acted in consort with other defend-
`
`ants. ACQIS, 572 F. Supp. 3d at 305-06. In doing so, ACQIS reasoned that: (1) LGL bought a
`
`subsidiary to enter the US market; and (2) Lenovo Group, with LGL at its head, is involved in the
`
`manufacture, sale, and distribution of the accused products. ACQIS, 572 F. Supp. 3d at 305. These
`
`reasons apply here too.
`
`b.
`
`LGL acts with its subsidiaries as one group in the US market
`
`As the court found in ACQIS, LGL operates as one with its subsidiaries, including Motorola
`
`and Lenovo US, as the “Lenovo Group.” The Lenovo Group presents itself as a single entity op-
`
`erating to manufacture, sell, and distribute the accused products worldwide, including in the United
`
`States. See, e.g., Ex. 5, 22/23 Annual Report at 63 (“‘We are Lenovo’ is Lenovo’s culture and the
`
`way Lenovo work together as one team.”). Lenovo’s website does not distinguish between various
`
`Lenovo entities and only discusses Lenovo as a whole, to the point where it lists “Main Headquar-
`
`ters” in both China and in the United States. Ex. 6. And as LGL’s Annual Report shows, the
`
`Lenovo Group is organized into business units unrelated to any specific entity; Motorola’s sales
`
`are, therefore, folded into the overall Group’s reports and indistinguishable from the rest of the
`
`
`1 Although LGL relies on the District of Delaware’s dismissal of LGL in 3G Licensing, S.A. v.
`Lenovo Group Ltd., none of the jurisdictional discovery this motion or the ACQIS court relied
`on was available to the Delaware court. See No. 17-cv-84, 2019 WL 3947459, at *8 (D. Del.
`Aug. 22, 2019).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 10 of 28 PageID #:
`29166
`
`
`Group. See, e.g., Ex. 5 at 16 (“During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2023, Lenovo’s (the Group)
`
`structural growth engines, including its Infrastructure Solutions Group (ISG), and Solutions and
`
`Services Group (SSG), set multiple performance records[.]”), 19 (“Lenovo is a global business
`
`operating in over 180 markets.”), 63 (“‘We Are Lenovo’ is Lenovo’s culture and the way Lenovo
`
`work together as one team.”); see also Ex. 1
`
`
`
`; Ex. 2
`
`.
`
`These references are not simply a publicly traded company reporting on its subsidiaries’
`
`performance along with its own. Rather, the Annual Report shows that LGL and its subsidiaries
`
`are organized to operate as a single entity, and they portray themselves as such. The Lenovo Group
`
`as a whole is organized into three business groups: Intelligent Devices Group (“IDG”), Infrastruc-
`
`ture Solutions Group, and Solutions and Services Group. Ex. 5 at 5, 17, 18, 45. These business
`
`groups are categorized by product types rather than specific entities, and they transcend national
`
`borders and parent-subsidiary distinctions. Id. at 18; Ex. 1
`
`; Ex. 7,
`
`.
`
`. Ex. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`; Ex. 1
`
`
`
`.
`
`To support these Group-wide product divisions, the Lenovo Group has established Group-
`
`wide support services that similarly transcend geographic borders and ignore distinctions between
`
`parent and subsidiaries.
`
`. Ex. 1
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 11 of 28 PageID #:
`29167
`
`
`; Ex. 2
`
`.
`
`. Ex. 1
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id.
`
`. For
`
`all purposes, the Lenovo Group is a single company.
`
`Two Lenovo US employees serve as an example of how the Group-wide organization of
`
`product and business-support services within Lenovo transcends national borders and parent-sub-
`
`sidiary distinctions. First, Matthew Zielinski, who oversees the International Sales Organization,
`
`the Annual Report does not mention that Mr. Zielinski
`
`. Ex. 1
`
`. But
`
`and instead
`
`identifies him as a member of the Group’s “Senior Management Team” who joined “the Com-
`
`pany”—i.e., LGL—in 2018, Ex. 5 at 156; Ex. 1
`
`.2
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. 1
`
`; Ex. 7
`
`.
`
`Second, Laura Quatela, another Lenovo US employee, is responsible for global litigation
`
`matters for the entire Lenovo Group. Ex. 5 at 13; Ex. 1
`
`
`
`ates similarly: Damian Glendinning,
`
`
`
`; Ex. 2
`
`. The Group’s treasury oper-
`
`
`2 In contrast, in the B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. Zodiac Aerospace, the defendant corporate parent “ex-
`ercise[d] no direction or control over” the subsidiaries. B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. Zodiac Aerospace,
`No. 2:16-cv-01417, 2018 WL 7140299, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2018), report and recommenda-
`tion adopted, 2019 WL 354883 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2019).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 12 of 28 PageID #:
`29168
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 13 of 28 PageID #:
`29169
`
`
`company’s new International Sales Organization.” Ex. 10. In that role, Mr. Rozanovich “will be
`
`
`. “[A]ll products” plainly encompasses both mobile devices and PC products, among
`
`responsible for sales of all products and business groups in North America.” Id.; see also Ex. 2
`
`others, so Mr. Rozanovich represents yet another example of a “Lenovo” executive working across
`
`entity lines to bring products, including the accused products, to market in the United States.
`
`On this point, LGL’s corporate deponent undermined his own carefully worded declara-
`
`tion. While he declares that LGL is not involved in Lenovo US’s or Motorola Mobility’s daily
`
`operations, ECF No. 35-7, Chim Decl. ¶ 6—an uncorroborated statement that contradicts LGL’s
`
`own Annual Report—
`
`. Ex. 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Thus, LGL’s attempts in this case to draw clear lines
`
`between itself and its subsidiaries contradicts the way the Lenovo Group actually operates.
`
`Because the Lenovo Group is organized to operate as a single company,
`
`. See, e.g., Ex. 1
`
`; Ex. 2
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 14 of 28 PageID #:
`29170
`
`
`; Ex. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`. The lack of internal distinctions between Lenovo entities runs so deep that LGL’s
`
`own Annual Report confuses who owns or does what. For example, in the Report, LGL holds itself
`
`out as the entity that contributes to pension, retirement, and deferred compensation plans for US-
`
`based employees, Ex. 5 at 162-65, 209-10, 230,
`
`
`
`, Ex. 1
`
`; Ex. 2
`
`. The Report’s biography for Matthew Ziel-
`
`inski talks about him joining the Company—LGL—when in reality Mr. Zielinski is a Lenovo US
`
`employee. See Ex. 5 at 158. The Annual Report also refers to “the Company’s website,” and LGL’s
`
`corporate representative
`
`; Ex. 1
`
`.
`
`. See id.
`
`
`
`Crediting LGL’s litigation positions and accepting that these are mistakes rather than true
`
`statements, these inexact references show that, when it is not trying to avoid legal liability in the
`
`United States, LGL perceives no distinction between itself and its US-based subsidiaries.
`
`It is, therefore, not just Lenovo US or Motorola who manufacture, sell, or distribute the
`
`accused products in the United States, as LGL’s motion to dismiss tried to convince this Court: it
`
`is the Lenovo Group, led by LGL. ACQIS was right to conclude that LGL works in consort with
`
`its subsidiaries in the Lenovo Group, including Lenovo US and Motorola, to target the United
`
`States market. ACQIS, 572 F. Supp. 3d at 305.
`
`LGL’s attempts to distinguish ACQIS fail. Contrary to LGL’s telling, the ACQIS decision
`
`did not turn on a factual dispute about who signed the distribution agreement between PC HK and
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 15 of 28 PageID #:
`29171
`
`
`Lenovo US. Motion at 13. Rather, the ACQIS court found that, because the distribution agreement
`
`specifically states that “The Lenovo Group is involved in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
`
`of [the Accused Products]” in the United States, it was “reasonable to find that PC HK and Lenovo
`
`US, acting at the behest of the Lenovo Group owned by LGL, contracted to target the United States
`
`market.” ACQIS, 572 F. Supp. 3d at 306. The “factual dispute” merely clinched the result for
`
`ACQIS. See id. And the other details on Mr. Glendinning’s employment that LGL supplied with
`
`its motion, ECF No. 35-14, if anything, also support the conclusion that the contract resulted from
`
`LGL’s direction; LGL offers no other explanation for why a Lenovo France employee would sign
`
`a product distribution agreement on behalf of a Chinese company.
`
`The other distinctions LGL draws between this case and ACQIS are irrelevant. First, that
`
`Lenovo PC HK isn’t a defendant here doesn’t change LGL’s consorted actions with it, which
`
`independently support personal jurisdiction over LGL; indeed, the ACQIS court nowhere relied on
`
`PC HK’s status as a defendant to support its decision to exercise personal jurisdiction over LGL.
`
`See id. at 305-06. Motorola’s presence here doesn’t change the analysis for Lenovo US’s products,
`
`and Motorola is as much a part of the Lenovo Group as Lenovo US, thereby subjecting it to the
`
`same direction and control.
`
`This Court’s Orange decision is instructive. There, the Court exercised personal jurisdic-
`
`tion over a Chinese company, Autel ITC, because it sold the accused products directly to its US-
`
`based subsidiary for distribution in the US and operated a website providing the location of retail-
`
`ers offering the accused products for sale. Orange Elec., 2022 WL 4368160, at *3. Here, Lenovo
`
`PC HK is situated almost identically to Autel ITC; the only distinction is that it does not own
`
`Lenovo US. Still, it sells the products to Lenovo US, who imports them and sells them in the
`
`United States. Lenovo PC HK would, under Orange, be subject to personal jurisdiction here. And
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 16 of 28 PageID #:
`29172
`
`
`as discussed, Lenovo PC HK is just a shell, standing in for LGL as distributor of the accused
`
`Lenovo products. The Court should thus ignore that distinction between Orange and this case and
`
`exercise personal jurisdiction over LGL as the ACQIS court did.
`
`3.
`
`LGL Purposefully Avails Itself of the US Market Through Its Website
`
`LGL conducts business over the Internet with customers here. Lenovo.com is an interactive
`
`website that offers for sale both Lenovo- and Motorola-branded products and provides technical
`
`support for purchasers, thereby subjecting LGL to personal jurisdiction in this District.
`
`The Fifth Circuit has adopted the framework set forth in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com,
`
`Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997), to assess the existence or absence of purposeful availment
`
`over the Internet. See Admar Int’l, Inc. v. Eastrock, L.L.C., 18 F.4th 783, 786 (5th Cir. 2021). That
`
`framework provides a spectrum of internet use, from doing business over the Internet “by entering
`
`into contracts with residents of other states which involve the knowing and repeated transmission
`
`of computer files over the internet,” where executing personal jurisdiction is appropriate, to pas-
`
`sive websites providing mere advertisements, where it isn’t. See Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190
`
`F.3d 333, 335 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Zippo, 952 F. Supp. at 1124).
`
`LGL’s website is highly interactive, supporting this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdic-
`
`tion over LGL. Customers in the United States generally and in Texas specifically can purchase
`
`both Lenovo and Motorola accused products directly from Lenovo.com. See, e.g., Ex. 11; Ex. 12.
`
`Customers can receive technical support for both Lenovo- and Motorola-branded products:
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 17 of 28 PageID #:
`29173
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 13. And individuals in the United States can apply for jobs at Lenovo all over the world—
`
`including in China. See Ex. 14; Ex. 15.
`
`Orange is again instructive. There, the Court concluded that Autel’s website specifically
`
`directed activities at the United States because the parent company’s website directed customers
`
`on how to buy products in the forum and offered instructions for technical support:
`
`Autel ITC’s website contains links for prospective U.S. retailers to provide infor-
`mation to potentially partner with Autel ITC and “Become a Dealer” of the Accused
`Products. On its “Where to Buy” webpage, Autel ITC’s website also directs U.S.
`retailers and dealers of the Accused Products, located “in the vicinity of Marshall,
`Texas[,] and surrounding areas.” Further, under the “Support” tab and the “Tech
`support” link, Autel ITC’s website requests that users identify any issues they have
`having with an Accused Product and then indicates that Autel ITC will forward the
`issue to “professional technicians” in the User’s region.
`
`Orange Elec., 2022 WL 4368160, at *5 (citations to the docket omitted). LGL’s website similarly
`
`offers instructions to consumers on where and how to buy its products and for technical support;
`
`in fact, it goes even further and allows customers to purchase products directly on the website.
`
`Like Autel ITC, then, LGL is subject to personal jurisdiction here because of its website.
`
`Ex. 16,
`
`
`
`. See
`
`. But LGL’s
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 18 of 28 PageID #:
`29174
`
`
`public statements suggest otherwise, and Lenovo.com itself bears all the hallmarks of being LGL’s
`
`website. As discussed above, LGL’s Annual Report refers to Lenovo.com as “the Company’s”—
`
`i.e., LGL’s—website. Ex. 5 at 93, 95, 105, 115, 116, 150. The “About” pages of the website do
`
`not mention Lenovo US or any specific Lenovo entity and, instead, tout Lenovo’s long (including
`
`pre-US-entry) history and global reach:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See Ex. 17. Clicking on an “Our Leaders” link takes one to a webpage that lists the members of
`
`the Lenovo Group’s senior leadership, including CEO Yuanqing Yang, who is an LGL director.
`
`Compare Ex. 18, with Ex. 5 at 12-13, and ECF No. 35-8. LGL plainly sees the website as its own,
`
`and it conducts business over the website both itself and as the head of the Lenovo Group. The
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 101 Filed 08/28/23 Page 19 of 28 PageID #:
`29175
`
`
`website therefore provides an independent basis for this Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction
`
`over LGL.
`
`4.
`
`Motorola’s and Lenovo US’s Purposeful Contacts Are Imputable to
`LGL
`
`LGL has also “purposefully avail[ed] itself of [this] forum by directing its agents or dis-
`
`tributors to take action [here].” See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 135 n.13 (2014). “This
`
`theory does not treat the parent and subsidiary as one entity, but rather attributes specific acts to
`
`the parent because of the parent’s authorization of those acts.” Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharm.,
`
`Inc., 629 F. Supp. 2d 338, 348 (D. Del. 2009). The relevant inquiry is whether the agent/subsidiary
`
`“performs services that are sufficiently important to the foreign corporation that if it did not have
`
`a representative to perform them, the corporation’s own officials would undertake to perform sub-
`
`stantially similar services.” Viskase Cos. v. World Pac Int’l AG, 710 F. Supp. 2d 754, 761 (N.D.
`
`Ill. 2010) (citation omitted).
`
`ACQIS is again on point. There, the Court held that “LGL’s control over PC HK and
`
`Lenovo US to establish, direct, and act as distribution agents in the United States creates sufficient
`
`minimum contacts.” ACQIS, 572 F. Supp. 3d at 307. LGL directs the Lenovo Group to sell prod-
`
`ucts to Lenovo US or Motorola for distribution in the US, creating concomitant