Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 1235
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`EIREOG INNOVATIONS LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`LENOVO GROUP LIMITED,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`EIREOG INNOVATIONS LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:24-cv-00239-JRG-RSP
`(Lead Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:24-cv-00279-JRG-RSP
`(Member Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 1236
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`
`I.
`
`II. RESPONSE TO LGL’S STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
`BY THE COURT ....................................................................................................................3
`
`
`III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................................................3
`
`IV. LEGAL STANDARD .............................................................................................................3
`
`V. ARGUMENT ..........................................................................................................................5
`
`
`A. The Court Has Specific Personal Jurisdiction Over LGL ...........................................5
`
`1.
`
`LGL has sufficient minimum contacts with Texas under a
`“stream of commerce” theory ...........................................................................5
`
`i.
`
`Eireog’s well-pleaded allegations ..........................................................5
`
`ii. Additional publicly-available information reinforces
`Eireog’s well-pled allegations ................................................................8
`
`iii. There is a nexus between LGL’s contacts and Eireog’s
`claim for patent infringement ...............................................................11
`
`iv. Personal jurisdiction over LGL is reasonable and fair .........................12
`
`B. LGL’s Arguments Should Be Rejected ....................................................................13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Cited Caselaw Demonstrates that this Court has Personal
`Jurisdiction Over LGL in Texas .....................................................................13
`
`LGL’s Additional Arguments Should be Rejected ........................................15
`
`C.
`
`In The Alternative, The Court Has Personal Jurisdiction Under Rule
`4(k)(2) .......................................................................................................................19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D. The Court Should Grant Leave to Amend ................................................................20
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................20
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 1237
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`3G Licensing, S.A. v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd..,
`No. 1:17-cv-84-LPS, 2019 WL 3974539 (D. Del. Aug. 22, 2019), report and
`recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 7635823 (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2019) ............................ 14, 15
`
`ACQIS LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd.,
`572 F. Supp. 3d 291 (W.D. Tex. 2021) .................................................................... 1, 13, 14, 15
`
`Ainsworth v. Moffett Eng’g, Ltd.,
`716 F.3d 174 (5th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`Arigna Tech. Ltd. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG,
`No. 2:21-CV-00173-JRG, 2023 WL 6606722 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2023) .................................. 11
`
`AX Wireless LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd.,
`No. 2:22-cv-00280-RSW-RSP, 2023 WL 7105701 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2023)
` .................................................................................. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19
`
`Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp.,
`21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
`471 U.S. 462 (1985) .................................................................................................................. 12
`
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd.,
`792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`CODA Dev. S.R.O. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,
`916 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................ 20
`
`Command-Aire Corp. v. Ontario Mechnical Sales and Service Inc.,
`963 F.2d 90 (5th Cir. 1992) ........................................................................................................ 8
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 6:14-cv-752-JRG-JDL, 2015 WL 4910427 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2015) ............................ 20
`
`Eastern Concrete Materials, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co.,
`948 F.3d 289 (5th Cir. 2020) .................................................................................................. 1, 3
`
`Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 1238
`
`Int’l Shoe co. v. Washington,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945) .................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Int’l Truck and Engine Corp. v. Quintana,
`259 F. Supp. 2d 553 (N.D. Tex. 2003) ....................................................................................... 8
`
`J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro,
`564 U.S. 873 (2011) .................................................................................................................. 19
`
`Nuance Commc’n, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House,
`626 F.3d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 12
`
`Patent Rts. Prot. Grp., LLC v. Video Gaming Techs., Inc.,
`603 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 12
`
`Stingray IP Sols., LLC v. Signify N.V.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00044-JRG, 2021 WL 9095764 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2021) ................................. 18
`
`Theta IP, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`No. 1:22-cv-3441, Dkt. No. 94 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2024) .................................................. 14, 15
`
`Thomas v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.,
`832 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`Touchcom v. Bereskin & Parr,
`574 F.3d 1403 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 19
`
`Ultravision Techs., LLC v. Govision, LLC,
`No. 2:18-CV-00100-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 1158606 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2020),
`report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:18-CV-100-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL
`1528521 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020) .......................................................................................... 20
`
`Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. v. Lenovo Group Limited,
`Case No. 2:23-cv-00449-JRG, Dkt. 18 (E.D. Tex. May 17, 2024) ............................................ 1
`
`World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,
`444 U.S. 286 (1980) .............................................................................................................. 4, 12
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Advisory Committee Notes to F.R.C.P. 4(k)(2) ........................................................................... 19
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 .......................................................................................................................... 20
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 ........................................................................................................ 2, 3, 17, 19, 20
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 1239
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should deny Defendant Lenovo Group Limited’s (“LGL”) Motion to Dismiss
`
`Plaintiff Eireog Innovations Ltd.’s (“Eireog”) Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 12, “Am. Compl.”)
`
`for lack of personal jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 24, “Motion”). Eireog’s allegations clearly establish
`
`that the Court has personal jurisdiction over LGL.
`
`LGL filed a nearly identical motion two months ago in Universal Connectivity
`
`Technologies Inc. v. Lenovo Group Limited, Case No. 2:23-cv-00449-JRG, Dkt. 18 (E.D. Tex.
`
`May 17, 2024). As the Plaintiff’s in that case stated, LGL’s arguments regarding personal
`
`jurisdiction have already been addressed, and rejected, by Judge Payne in AX Wireless LLC v.
`
`Lenovo Grp. Ltd., No. 2:22-cv-00280-RSW-RSP, 2023 WL 7105701 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2023).
`
`But, like déjà vu, LGL once again argues that it is a holding company based in Hong Kong that
`
`has no control over its U.S.-based subsidiaries, that it does not make or sell anything in the United
`
`States and Texas, and that it plays no role in putting any products into the stream of commerce.
`
`All of LGL’s arguments, however, have already been considered and rejected by Judge Payne.
`
`Because the facts here are nearly identical, this Court should deny LGL’s Motion on similar
`
`grounds.
`
`This Court is not the only court that has found personal jurisdiction exists over LGL in
`
`Texas. For example, the Western District of Texas also found that exercising personal jurisdiction
`
`over LGL was both reasonable and fair. See, e.g., ACQIS LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd., 572 F. Supp.
`
`3d 291, 307 (W.D. Tex. 2021) (“this Court finds that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over
`
`[Lenovo Group Limited] is both reasonable and fair.”). Because personal jurisdiction is based on
`
`LGL’s contacts with the State of Texas as a whole, and not based on contacts with a specific
`
`district, the reasoning in ACQIS is also applicable here. See, e.g., Eastern Concrete Materials,
`
`Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 948 F.3d 289, 296 (5th Cir. 2020) (“Specific jurisdiction arises when a
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 1240
`
`defendant’s minimum contacts with a forum state are related to the pending lawsuit.”) (emphasis
`
`added). LGL has already been found—at least twice—to be subject to personal jurisdiction in
`
`Texas in patent infringement cases involving similar products, the same related entities acting in
`
`consort, and the same contacts with the United States and the State of Texas. LGL cannot justify
`
`ignoring the holdings in AX Wireless and ACQIS.
`
`Regardless, Eireog’s Amended Complaint has adequately pled that personal jurisdiction
`
`exists over LGL. For example, Eireog’s allegations demonstrate personal jurisdiction at least
`
`under a stream of commerce theory because LGL alone and through its U.S.-based subsidiaries
`
`delivers the LGL Accused Products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they
`
`will be purchased by consumers in Texas. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3-9, 11. Eireog’s allegations are further
`
`confirmed by LGL’s 2022/2023 Annual Report (cited throughout the Amended Complaint), public
`
`representations on its website, LGL’s ESG Report, and the presence of LGL leadership in the U.S.,
`
`including
`
`in Texas.
`
`
`
`Id.; see also Ex. A
`
`(Lenovo webpage – “Products” –
`
`https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/pc/ ); Ex. B (Lenovo webpage – “Our Leadership” -
`
`https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/about/who-we-are/our-leadership/ ); Ex. C (Lenovo webpage –
`
`“Locations” - https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/about/locations/ ). Accordingly, Eireog has set forth
`
`sufficient facts demonstrating that LGL has sufficient minimum contacts with Texas to subject it
`
`to jurisdiction there.
`
`In addition, this Court may also find that personal jurisdiction exists over LGL under Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). Rule 4(k)(2) allows this Court to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign defendant,
`
`such as LGL, where that defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the United States as a
`
`whole, but is not subject to jurisdiction in any one particular state. LGL has not identified
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 1241
`
`anywhere in the United States where it purports to be subject to jurisdiction and it should not be
`
`permitted to evade the judicial system in the United States entirely.
`
`To the extent the Court determines that there are any alleged deficiencies in UCT’s
`
`pleadings (there are not), Eireog requests that the Court grant it leave to amend its Amended
`
`Complaint to remedy such alleged deficiencies.
`
`II.
`
`RESPONSE TO LGL’S STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED BY
`THE COURT
`
`The Court should deny LGL’s Motion and find, as it has done before, that LGL is subject
`
`to personal jurisdiction in Texas based on a stream of commerce theory, an agency/alter ego theory,
`
`and/or based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2).
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`On April 11, 2024, Eireog filed this case against LGL alleging patent infringement. Dkt.
`
`No. 1. On June 4, 2024, Eireog filed its Amended Complaint alleging that LGL infringes five
`
`patents. Dkt. No. 12. Eireog’s infringement allegations assert that LGL makes, uses, imports,
`
`offers for sale, and/or sells certain Lenovo-branded computing and server products infringe certain
`
`claims of the asserted patents based on their processor interrupt management and cache processing
`
`functionality. Dkt. No. 12, Exhibits 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“A federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if (1) the
`
`forum state’s long-arm statute confers personal jurisdiction over that defendant; and (2) the
`
`exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
`
`Amendment.” Eastern Concrete Materials, 948 F.3d at 295-96. When, as here, Texas is the
`
`forum, “these two inquiries merge into one because the Texas long-arm statute permits the exercise
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 1242
`
`of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the fullest extent allowed by the United States
`
`Constitution.” Id. at 296.
`
`Personal jurisdiction in patent cases is assessed using Federal Circuit law. See Celgard,
`
`LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd., 792 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Due process requires that
`
`the defendant have sufficient ‘minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that maintenance of
`
`the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Id. (quoting Int’l
`
`Shoe co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). To make that determination, the Federal
`
`Circuit assesses the following three factors: (1) whether the defendant purposefully directed its
`
`activities at residents of the forum state, (2) whether the claim arises out of or relates to the
`
`defendant’s activities with the forum state, and (3) whether assertion of personal jurisdiction is
`
`reasonable and fair. Id. “The first two factors correspond to the ‘minimum contacts’ prong of the
`
`International Shoe analysis, and the third factor with the ‘fair play and substantial justice’ prong.”
`
`Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The minimum contacts
`
`test is satisfied if a defendant “delivers its products into the stream of commerce with the
`
`expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the forum state.” Beverly Hills Fan Co.
`
`v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen
`
`Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297-98 (1980)).
`
`“Once the plaintiff has shown that there are sufficient minimum contacts to satisfy due
`
`process, it becomes defendants’ burden to present a ‘compelling case that the presence of some
`
`other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.’” Coyle, 340 F.3d at 1351-52.
`
`“Where, as here, a district court’s disposition as to the personal jurisdictional question is based on
`
`affidavits and other written materials in the absence of an evidentiary hearing, a plaintiff need only
`
`to make a prima facie showing that defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction.” Id. at 1349.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 1243
`
`“[A] district court must accept the uncontroverted allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true
`
`and resolve any factual conflicts in the affidavits in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id.
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`The Court Has Specific Personal Jurisdiction Over LGL
`
`Consistent with the findings of this Court and the Western District of Texas, Eireog has set
`
`forth facts sufficient to demonstrate that LGL is subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas. To
`
`properly plead the existence of personal jurisdiction, Eireog need only show “(1) minimum
`
`contacts by the defendant purposefully directed at the forum state, (2) a nexus between the
`
`defendant’s contacts and the plaintiff’s claims, and (3) that the exercise of jurisdiction over the
`
`defendant [is] fair and reasonable.” Ainsworth v. Moffett Eng’g, Ltd., 716 F.3d 174, 177 (5th Cir.
`
`2014). For the reasons described below, Eireog’s Amended Complaint more than adequately sets
`
`forth a prima facie case of specific personal jurisdiction over LGL in Texas and an evidentiary
`
`hearing is not necessary.
`
`1. LGL has sufficient minimum contacts with Texas under a “stream of
`commerce” theory
`
`i. Eireog’s well-pleaded allegations
`
`Eireog’s Amended Complaint alleges facts demonstrating that LGL has sufficient
`
`minimum contacts with Texas under a stream of commerce theory. See AX Wireless, 2023 WL
`
`7105701, at *3 (“AX Wireless contends personal jurisdiction is proper under a stream of commerce
`
`theory because LGL acts in concert with its subsidiaries to deliver products into the United States
`
`market.”). For example, Eireog’s Amended Complaint alleges:
`
`Lenovo, alone and through its U.S.-based subsidiaries (such as Lenovo US and
`Lenovo Tech.), places such infringing products into the stream of commerce via
`established distribution channels knowing or understanding that such products
`would be sold and used in the United States, including in the Eastern District of
`Texas.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 1244
`
` Am. Compl. ¶ 9; see also id. at ¶ 3 (“Lenovo does business in Texas and in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas, directly or through intermediaries, such as its wholly-owned subsidiaries. Lenovo is
`
`responsible for importing, making, marketing, distributing, offering for sale, and/or selling
`
`Lenovo-branded servers, workstations, laptops, and desktops in the United States (directly or
`
`through its wholly-owned subsidiaries), including in this District.”).
`
`The allegations in Eireog’s Amended Complaint are supported by factual details
`
`demonstrating that “Lenovo purposefully directs the Accused Products into established
`
`distribution channels within this District and the U.S. nationally.” Am. Compl. ¶ 4. For example,
`
`Eireog’s Amended Complaint sets forth that “Lenovo sells and offers to sell the Accused Products
`
`through its website, Lenovo.com, which may be accessed throughout the United States, the State
`
`of Texas, and this District.” Id. Further, LGL’s 2022/23 Annual Report, cited in and attached to
`
`Eireog’s Amended Complaint, describes LGL as a “global technology powerhouse, ranked #171
`
`in the Fortune Global 500, employing 77,000 people around the world, and serving millions of
`
`customers every day in 180 markets.” Ex. D (LGL 2022/23 Annual Report) at 1 (“Above
`
`Lenovo”); see, e.g., Am. Compl. at ¶ 8 (citing a portion of LGL’s 2022/23 Annual Report). LGL’s
`
`2022/23 Annual Report also demonstrates that LGL provides pension plans, savings plans, and
`
`deferred compensation benefits to certain U.S. regular, full-time, and part-time employees. Ex. D
`
`(LGL 2022/23 Annual Report) at 162-165. Eireog’s Amended Complaint further establishes that
`
`“Lenovo maintains a corporate presence in the United States via at least its wholly-owned U.S.-
`
`based subsidiaries, including Lenovo (United States) Inc. (‘Lenovo US’) and Lenovo Global
`
`Technology (United States) Inc. (‘Lenovo Tech.’).” Am. Compl. ¶ 5. This is confirmed by LGL’s
`
`2022/23 Annual Report, which identifies Lenovo US and Lenovo Tech. in its list of “Principal
`
`Subsidiaries” and states that LGL’s share of capital in each is 100%. Ex. D (LGL 2022/23 Annual
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 1245
`
`Report) at 279, 281; see also Am. Compl. ¶ 8. In addition, both Lenovo US and Lenovo Tech are
`
`registered to do business in the State of Texas and may be served in Texas through CT Corporation
`
`System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.
`
`Eireog’s Amended Complaint further establishes that Lenovo US and Lenovo Tech. are
`
`agents of LGL that operate at the direction and control of LGL to make, use, import, offer to sell,
`
`and/or sell the LGL Accused Products in the United States and specifically in Texas—all of which
`
`are reinforced throughout LGL’s 2022/23 Annual Report. Compl. ¶ 8 (“Lenovo and its U.S.-based
`
`subsidiaries (which act as part of a global network of sales and manufacturing subsidiaries) operate
`
`as agents of one another and vicariously as parts of the same business group to work in concert
`
`together.”); Ex. D (LGL 2022/23 Annual Report) at 192 (“Lenovo Group Limited (the ‘Company’)
`
`and its subsidiaries (together, the ‘Group’) develop, manufacture and market reliable, high-quality,
`
`secure and easy-to-use technology products and services.”). As Eireog states in its Amended
`
`Complaint, LGL “identifies the ‘principal activities’ for Lenovo US as ‘[d]istribution of IT
`
`products’ and the ‘principal activities’ for Lenovo Tech. as ‘[p]rovision of IT services and
`
`distribution of IT products’”—underscoring their role in the distribution of the LGL Accused
`
`Products throughout the United States and in Texas. Compl. ¶ 8 (citing LGL’s 2022/23 Annual
`
`Report at 276, 279, 281).
`
`Furthermore, Eireog’s Amended Complaint sets forth that LGL has specific contacts with
`
`Texas through its authorized sellers and sales representatives:
`
`Lenovo sells and offers to sell the Accused Products through its website,
`Lenovo.com, which may be accessed throughout the United States, the State of
`Texas, and this District. Additionally, Lenovo has authorized sellers and sales
`representatives that offer for sale and sell the Accused Products throughout the
`State of Texas and to consumers throughout this District, such as: Best Buy, 422
`West Loop 281, Suite 100, Longview, Texas 75605; Costco Wholesale, 3650 West
`University Drive, McKinney, Texas 75071; Office Depot, 422 West Loop281,
`Suite 300, Longview, Texas 75605; Target, 3092 North Eastman Road, Suite 100,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 1246
`
`Longview, Texas 75605; and Wal-Mart, 1701 East End Boulevard North, Marshall,
`Texas 75670.
`
`Am. Compl. ¶ 4; see also AX Wireless, 2023 WL 7105701, at *4 (“Beyond a general U.S. presence,
`
`the FAC specifically identifies locations for Best Buy, Costco, Office Depot, Target, and Wal-
`
`Mart within this District as authorized sellers of the Accused Products that LGL, through the
`
`Lenovo Group, places into the stream of commerce.”). Accordingly, Eireog’s Amended
`
`Complaint establishes that “LGL purposefully ships Accused Products into the forum state through
`
`an established distribution channel” and is, therefore, subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas. AX
`
`Wireless, 2023 WL 7105701, at *4 (“AX Wireless presents evidence indicating LGL is at the head
`
`of the Lenovo Group – including LGL… Lenovo (United States), Inc., … and the Lenovo Group
`
`manufactures, sells, and distributes the Accused Products in the United States and worldwide.”).
`
`ii. Additional publicly-available information reinforces Eireog’s
`well-pled allegations
`
`In addition to the allegations set forth in Eireog’s Amended Complaint detailed above,
`
`LGL’s public representations and other publicly available information further confirm that LGL
`
`has sufficient minimum contacts with the state of Texas. See Int’l Truck and Engine Corp. v.
`
`Quintana, 259 F. Supp. 2d 553, 556-57 (N.D. Tex. 2003) (“In resolving a jurisdictional issue, the
`
`court may review pleadings, affidavits, interrogatories, depositions, oral testimony, exhibits, any
`
`part of the record, and any combination thereof.”) (citing Command-Aire Corp. v. Ontario
`
`Mechnical Sales and Service Inc., 963 F.2d 90, 95 (5th Cir. 1992)). For example, LGL’s website,
`
`Lenovo.com, indicates that LGL is at the head of the Lenovo Group, which is responsible for
`
`manufacturing, selling, and distributing the LGL Accused Products throughout the United States.
`
`Ex. A (Lenovo webpage – “Products” – https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/pc/ ). LGL’s website also
`
`identifies “Headquarters” in the U.S. and eight U.S. sales offices, one of which is located in Fort
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 1247
`
`Worth,
`
`Texas.
`
`
`
`Ex.
`
`C
`
`(Lenovo
`
`webpage
`
`–
`
`“Locations”
`
`–
`
`https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/about/locations/ ).
`
`LGL’s U.S. presence is further confirmed by the Environmental, Social and Governance
`
`Report (“ESG Report”) that LGL relies on throughout its Motion.1, 2 In particular, the ESG Report
`
`describes LGL as “a global technology powerhouse employing approximately 69,500 people
`
`around the world and serving millions of customers every day in 180 markets.” Ex. E (ESG
`
`Report) at 11. Of its 69,500 employees, LGL reports that 15% (10,425) are from the Americas
`
`(which includes North America and Latin America). Id. at 104; see also id. at 105 (showing
`
`breakdown of US employee representation). Further, the ESG Report identifies the United States
`
`as one of LGL’s headquarters and touts LGL’s global supply chain stating that LGL “has
`
`established company locations, research centers, and manufacturing sites around the world.” Id.
`
`In addition, the ESG Report states that LGL “manages a diverse and dynamic supply chain” and
`
`states that LGL’s “supply base is comprised of multiple tiers in which lower tiers of suppliers
`
`provide materials and parts to higher tiers – and eventually to its Tier 1 suppliers, the suppliers
`
`with whom the Company has a direct contractual relationship.” Id. at 104. And, of LGL’s 533
`
`production procurement suppliers, 123 are based in North America. Id.
`
`Furthermore, a statement in the ESG Report from LGL’s Chief Legal and Corporate
`
`Responsibility Officer, Laura Quatela describes “a Self-ID Campaign in 2023” that LGL “rolled
`
`
`1 The ESG Report makes clear that “Lenovo,” “Lenovo Group,” and the “Group” refers to LGL
`together with its subsidiaries. Ex. E (ESG Report) at 10. Notably, the contact listed for questions
`or information about the report is Ms. Jeannie Kwong, LGL’s ESG Reporting Manager, who is
`based in Morrisville, North Carolina. See id. at 10.
`2 LGL relies on a single, self-serving footnote in the ESG Report (see pg. 10, n. 1) as purported
`evidence that LGL is just a holding company. Mot. at 2, 6, 10, 12. That single footnote cannot
`negate the overwhelming evidence in the ESG Report and elsewhere demonstrating the LGL is at
`the head of Lenovo Group and controls the actions of its subsidiaries. At best, that footnote shows
`that there is a factual dispute which, on a motion to dismiss, is resolved in favor of the non-movant.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 1248
`
`out in the US” with the help of local leadership. Ex. E (ESG Report) at 6-7. Ms. Quatela highlights
`
`LGL as “an industry leader in the inclusion of women in the workforce” referencing LGL’s goal
`
`to reach “35% representation of executives from historically excluded backgrounds in the US.”
`
`Id. at 7. Ms. Quatela’s statement also refers to LGL’s “[e]mployees in… the US” and describes
`
`LGL as “a global technology company.” Id. at 7. Notably, Ms. Quatela herself lives and works
`
`in
`
`the United States.
`
` See Ex. F
`
`(Laura G. Quatela LinkedIn Profile
`
`-
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-g-quatela-2923242/ ).
`
`In addition, LGL has numerous other management level members that live and work in the
`
`United States including at least Matthew Zielinski and Kirk Skaugen. Ex. D at 12-13; Ex. G (Kirk
`
`Skaugen LinkedIn Profile - https://www.linkedin.com/in/kirkskaugen/). In fact, LGL’s Executive
`
`Vice President and President of International Markets, Matthew Zielinski, resides and works in
`
`Texas. Ex. B (Lenovo webpage – “Our Leadership” - https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/about/who-
`
`we-are/our-leadership/ ). Mr. Zielinski is one of LGL’s identified “Leaders” and a member of
`
`LGL’s Executive Committee. Id. He is responsible for “Lenovo’s go-to-market charge across
`
`markets throughout Asia Pacific, Japan, EMEA, Latin America, and North America.” Ex. H
`
`(Zielinski Profile on Lenovo webpage – “Our Leadership”). At a minimum, this evidence creates
`
`a factual conflict regarding whether LGL shares its management level employees with its U.S.-
`
`based subsidiaries, which must be weighed in UCT’s favor on a motion to dismiss. See AX
`
`Wireless, 2023 WL 7105701, at *4 (“the evidence creates factual conflicts that LGL… shares
`
`executives and management teams with other entities to manufacture and distribute Accused
`
`Products in the United States.”).
`
`Ultimately, Eireog has set forth facts and evidence to demonstrate that “[t]he Lenovo
`
`Group – including LGL and its subsidiaries… – is the established distribution channel for the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00239-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/02/24 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 1249
`
`[LGL] Accused Products throughout the United States, including Texas, which is one of the most
`
`populated States.” AX Wireless, 2023 WL 7105701, at *4. “Accordingly, LGL could foresee that
`
`the [LGL] Accused Products would be sold in Texas.” Id.
`
`iii. There is a nexus between LGL’s contacts and Eireog’s claim for
`patent infringement
`
`“[T]here is a nexus between [LGL]’s minimum contacts and [Eireog’s] claims of patent
`
`infringement in this case.” Arigna Tech. Ltd. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, No. 2:21-CV-
`
`00173-JRG, 2023 WL 6606722, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 6, 2023). Eireog alleges that:
`
`Lenovo makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or imports certain products,
`including without limitation Lenovo’s products using Intel-based CPUs (Haswell-
`based architecture and newer) (including but not limited to ThinkSystem Servers
`(SD530 V3, SD550 V3, SE350 V2, SE360 V2, ST650 V3, SR630 V3, SR650 V3,
`SR850 V3, SR860 V3, SR950 V3, SD650 V3, SD650-I V3, SD650-N V3, SE450,
`ST50 V2, SR250 V2, ST650 V2, SR630 V2, SR650 V2, SR670 V2, SD630 V2,
`SD650 V2, SD650-N V2, SN550 V2 , SE350, ST50, SR530, SR630, SR650,
`SR850, SR850P, SR850 V2, SR860 V2, SR950, ST550, SN550, SN850),
`ThinkAgile Systems (HX630 V3, HX650 V3, HX1330, HX2330, HX3330,
`HX5530, HX7530, HX7820), ThinkStation Workstations (P3 Tiny Workstation,
`P3 Tower Workstation, P3 Ultra Small Workstation, P5 Workstation, P7
`Workstation, PX Workstation), ThinkCentre Desktops (M80q Gen 4, Neo 50s Gen
`4, M70s Gen 3, M70q Gen 3, Gen 4, M90q Gen 3, M90t Gen 3), ThinkPad Laptops
`(ThinkPad X1, ThinkPad E16, ThinkPad T14, ThinkPad T16 Gen 2), Legion
`Laptops (Legion Pro 71, Legion Pro 5i Gen 8), ThinkBook Laptops (ThinkBook 16
`Gen 1, ThinkBook 14 Gen 6), IdeaPads (IdeaPad 5i), and Yoga Laptops (Yoga 9i,
`7i)) and AMD Zenbased CPUs (including but not limited to ThinkSystem Servers
`(SE455 V3, SR635 V3, SR655 V3, SR645 V3, SR665 V3, SR675 V3, SD665-N
`V3, SR635, SR655 V3, SR645, SR665), ThinkAgile Systems (HX645 V3 and
`HX655 V3), ThinkStation Workstations (P620 Workstation, P8 Workstation),
`Thin