)1 Nonetheless, NOCO’s attempts to contact Defendant by email were more promising.

Defendants The court held a telephonic conference with counsel for Plaintiff The NOCO Company (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Tii Trading, Inc. (“Defendant”) in the within case on July 8, 2020, at 3:00 p.m. During the conference, the court and the parties discussed the parties’ discovery dispute, which the parties brought to the court’s attention via several emails to the court’s Courtroom Deputy.

In short, Plaintiff informed the court that Defendant has failed to produce any documents in response to Plaintiff’s production requests.

Plaintiff asserted that its production requests are narrowly tailored, per the court’s Order (ECF No. 16) dated April 1, 2020, which authorized the parties to engage in limited jurisdictional discovery with respect to matters raised in Defendant’s pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9).

Defendant asserted that Plaintiff’s production requests seek information outside the scope of the limited jurisdictional discovery, and reiterated its contention that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant.

The court will hold a telephonic conference with counsel for the parties on July 22, 2020, at 4:00 p.m. Dial-in information shall be issued separately.

PageID #: 7617

Peter J. Curtin, one of the attorneys for Defendant, notifies the Court and counsel of his change of address as follows: Peter J. Curtin

PageID #: 7618

) Nonetheless, NOCO’s attempts to contact Defendant by email were more promising.

Defendants Currently pending before the court in the above-captioned case is Plaintiff The Noco Company’s (“Plaintiff” or “Noco”) Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery (“Motion”).

In support, Noco highlights the fact that Defendant Tii Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Tii Trading”) has a pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9)1 to which Defendant failed to attach any supporting evidence (e.g. affidavit, declaration, In its Motion to Dismiss, Tii Trading asserts that this court lacks personal jurisdiction because Tii Trading is: incorporated in California; has its principal place of business in California; has no offices, buildings, or personal property in Ohio; and has no employees or other personnel in Ohio.

Tii Trading also maintains that the fact that it conducts business over the internet using Amazon’s website is insufficient to establish

PageID #: 188 or other sworn statement) but seeks dismissal for, among other reasons, lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).

Thus, discovery shall be limited to the jurisdictional issues raised in or relevant to Tii Trading’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9).

; (iii) tortious interference with business relationships; (iv) trade libel; and (v) common law civil conspiracy; however, Defendants deny that any grounds exist for such claims.

Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of this Paragraph regarding the conduct of other entities or the third-party software, and so deny them.

Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of this Paragraph regarding the conduct of other entities or the third-party software, and so deny them.

Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of this Paragraph regarding the conduct of other entities or the third-party software, and so deny them.

Upon information and belief, NOCO, or its agents, are making false and misleading statements to the public and filed meritless lawsuits against Mediatek and Bi Te Yi’s respective products that are in commerce in the United States.

P. 6(b) for an extension of fourteen (14) days, to and including August 19, 2021, within which to file its response to the Complaint.

However, due to the press of other matters and undersigned counsel’s planned participation in a series of depositions during the first two weeks of August, the extension sought herein is needed to prepare and file a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s 208 paragraph Complaint.

Preparing a responsive pleading is complicated by time zone differences between undersigned counsel and TII Trading, Inc. and language barriers as well.

The extension sought is not for purposes of unnecessary delay but to ensure that counsel for Defendant TII Trading, Inc. has sufficient time to respond properly to the Complaint.

PageID #: 7392 For the above reasons, Defendant asks that the date by which it must respond to the Complaint be extended to and including August 19, 2021.

None of Defendants’ alleged acts towards U.S. consumers, e.g., buying advertisements at Amazon and remote customer service, are related to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants.

None of Defendants’ alleged acts, e.g., buying 10 Case: 1:20-cv-00049-SO Doc #: 122 Filed: 06/24/21 12 of 13.

Council did not discuss the “link to interstate commerce” and the “causal link between the false advertising and his own injury.” Defendants, nonetheless, sufficiently alleged these two links.

PageID #: 7549

To Clerk of Court: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 55(a), Plaintiff The NOCO Company (“Plaintiff”), by and through counsel, hereby requests the entry of default on all claims in the above- captioned matter against Defendant Nice Team Enterprise Limited (“Defendant”) for failure to file any answer or response within the time allowed under Fed. R. Civ.

An affidavit in support of this request is attached.

against Defendant Nice Team Enterprise Limited on September 13, 2021 by: Sandy Opacich, Clerk Sharon M. Romito Deputy Clerk Respectfully submitted, KORHMAN JACKSON & KRANTZ LLP

PageID #: 7548

To Clerk of Court: Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 55(a), Plaintiff The NOCO Company (“Plaintiff”), by and through counsel, hereby requests the entry of default on all claims in the above- captioned matter against Defendant Shenzhen Jieqi Digital Technology, Co., Ltd. (“Defendant”) for failure to file any answer or response within the time allowed under Fed. R. Civ.

An affidavit in support of this request is attached.

PageID #: 7521

P. 4(k)(2) applies, improperly request that jurisdictional discovery be limited to their contacts with Ohio.

Here, the federal long arm statute applies because NOCO's claims arise under federal law—the Lanham Act—and Defendants are not subject to personal jurisdiction in any one state of the United States.

Defendants compound that mistake when they request this Court refuse to allow proper and necessary jurisdictional discovery.

For these reasons, NOCO is entitled to discover the full extent of the Defendants’ contacts with the United States.

NOCO requests that the Court allow jurisdictional discovery to determine Defendants’ contacts and purposeful availment to the United States.

NOCO correctly analyzed the Sixth Circuit’s factors for determining whether severing claims is appropriate.

Logically, factually, and legally, the Gooloo and Audew Counterclaims here are not related to NOCO’s claims and should therefore be severed and transferred to the respective patent cases.

Severing and Transferring the Counterclaims Will Also Promote Judicial Economy and Avoid Prejudice.

Finally, NOCO will be subjected to prejudice if it must defend against the Counterclaims in different proceedings in the Northern District of Ohio.

For these reasons, and the reasons set forth in NOCO’s Motion, NOCO respectfully requests that this Court exercise its discretion and inherent authority and sever the Gooloo and Audew Counterclaims and transfer the claims to the respective, and currently pending, Patent Cases.

NOCO requests an extension of twenty-one (21) days until after the close of jurisdictional discovery to respond to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion to Dismiss”).

Concurrently herewith, NOCO filed a Motion for Leave to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery (the “Motion for Discovery”) (ECF # 102).

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d), NOCO’s opposition to the Motion to Dismiss is due on or before November 25, 2020.

PageID #: 6837 NOCO requests an additional twenty-one (21) days to respond to the Motion to Dismiss from the later of: (i) the date the Motion for Discovery is ruled upon; or (ii) the date jurisdictional discovery closes.

P. 4(k)(2), which triggers jurisdictional discovery; (ii) jurisdictional discovery will allow NOCO to confirm Defendants’ extensive contacts with the forum, i.e. the United States; and (iii) the Court should allow NOCO to discover Defendants’ true contacts and purposeful availment of the United States market as the affidavits submitted to this Court concern mainly Ohio.