Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 1 of 21
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`
`
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:22-CV-22706-RNS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HMD AMERICA, INC., HMD GLOBAL OY,
`SHENZHEN CHIINO-E COMMUNICATION
`CO. LTD., HON HAI PRECISION
`INDUSTRY CO., LTD, TINNO MOBILE
`TECHNOLOGY CORP., SHENZHEN TINNO
`MOBILE CO., LTD., TINNO USA, INC.,
`UNISOC TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD.,
`SPREADTRUM COMMUNICATIONS USA,
`INC., WINGTECH TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.,
`WINGTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`HUAQIN CO. LTD., BEST BUY CO., INC.,
`BEST BUY STORES L.P., TARGET CORP.,
`WALMART INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD’S
`MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND
`INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION ..................................... 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`II.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`A.
`Jurisdictional Facts.................................................................................................. 2
`B.
`BNR’s Allegations .................................................................................................. 3
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`The Standard for General Jurisdiction .................................................................... 5
`B.
`The Standard for Specific Jurisdiction in Florida Statute 48.193(1) ...................... 6
`C.
`The Standard for Specific Jurisdiction in the Due Process Clause ......................... 6
`D.
`The Shifting of Burdens on a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) ......... 7
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 8
`A.
`Hon Hai Is Not Subject to General Jurisdiction in the State of Florida .................. 8
`B.
`Hon Hai Is Not Subject to Specific Jurisdiction Under Florida Statute 48.193(1) . 9
`C.
`Hon Hai Is Not Subject to Specific Jurisdiction Under the Due Process Clause . 11
`1. Hon Hai did not purposefully direct any conduct toward Florida ................ 11
`2. Any infringement does not arise out of Hon Hai’s activities ......................... 12
`3. Forcing Hon Hai to litigate in Florida would be unreasonable
`and unfair .............................................................................................................. 12
`Rule 4(k)(2) Does Not Provide Florida With Jurisdiction .................................... 14
`D.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 3 of 21
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`3D Sys., Inc. v. Aarotech Labs., Inc.,
`160 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..............................................................................................5, 7
`
`AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp.,
`689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................7, 9
`
`Asahi Metal Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Solano Cnty.,
`480 U.S. 102 (1987) .....................................................................................................12, 13, 14
`
`Atlantis Hydroponics, Inc. v. Int’l Growers Supply, Inc.,
`915 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (N.D. Ga. 2013) ......................................................................................9
`
`Atmos Nation LLC v. Alibaba Grp. Holding Ltd.,
`No. 15-cv-62104, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33228 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2016).........................5, 6
`
`Benjamin Obdyke Inc. v. Owens Corning,
`No. 02-cv-8408, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7238 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2004) ...............................12
`
`BNSF Ry. v. Tyrrell,
`137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017) .......................................................................................................6, 8, 9
`
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
`471 U.S. 462 (1985) .........................................................................................................6, 7, 12
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) ...............................................................................................................6, 8
`
`F & G Research, Inc. v. Dynapoint (Taiwan) Inc.,
`No. 06-cv-60904, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97040 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2007) ...................6, 7, 11
`
`Fraser v. Smith,
`594 F.3d 842 (11th Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................5
`
`Future Tech. Today, Inc. v. OSF Healthcare Sys.,
`218 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................9
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown,
`131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) ...........................................................................................................5, 8
`
`Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall,
`466 U.S. 408 (1984) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 4 of 21
`
`ISI Int’l, Inc. v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP,
`256 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................14
`
`J.P. Morgan Tr. Co. v. Potash Corp. of Sask., Inc. (In re Farmland Indus.),
`No. 05-cv-587, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23872 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2007) ...............................5
`
`Koziol v. Bombardier-Rotax Gmbh,
`Nos. 02-cv-61807, 03-cv-61096, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30884 (S.D. Fla.
`Mar. 22, 2004)..........................................................................................................................14
`
`Marrero v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
`No. 20-cv-1147, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97838 (M.D. Fla. May 24, 2021),
`report and recommendation adopted sub nom. .........................................................................7
`
`Marrero v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 20-cv-1147, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`116036 (M.D. Fla. June 22, 2021) .............................................................................................7
`
`Miller Indus. Towing Equip. v. NRC Indus.,
`No. 19-cv-00095, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67365 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 16, 2020) ........................15
`
`Posner v. Essex Ins. Co.,
`178 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................7
`
`Sanho Corp. v. Kaijet Tech. Int’l Ltd.,
`18-cv-05385, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108318 (N.D. Ga. June 9, 2021)....................................8
`
`Shipping & Transit, LLC v. WOV, LLC,
`No. 16-cv-80860, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130501 (S.D. Fla. Sep. 21, 2016) ...........................9
`
`Structural Panels, Inc. v. Tex. Aluminum Indus., Inc.,
`814 F. Supp. 1058 (M.D. Fla. 1992) ....................................................................................8, 10
`
`Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin & Parr,
`574 F.3d 1403 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................14
`
`Zanakis v. Scanreco, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-21813, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89210 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2019) .............................11
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 271 ..............................................................................................................................3
`
`Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2)........................................................................................................................5
`
`Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)...................................................................................................................6, 9
`
`Fla. Stat. § 48.193(1)(a)(2) ..............................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 5 of 21
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(2) ..........................................................................1, 7
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 6 of 21
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Hon Hai
`
`Precision Industry Co., Ltd. (“Hon Hai”), a Taiwanese corporation, hereby moves to dismiss the
`
`Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) of Bell Northern Research, LLC (“BNR”) for lack of personal jurisdiction.1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Hon Hai does not have any place of business in Florida, nor does it regularly conduct and/or
`
`solicit business in Florida. The conclusory jurisdictional allegations in the Complaint are
`
`insufficient to offer any meaningful contradiction to these facts. Hon Hai is merely a components
`
`manufacturer, and does not introduce any accused Nokia phones or tablets (“Accused Products,”
`
`see Complaint at ¶ 113) into the stream of commerce anywhere in the world. No amount of
`
`discovery will alter these facts.
`
`The Southern District of Florida cannot exercise personal jurisdiction (either general or
`
`specific) over Hon Hai. As to general jurisdiction, Taiwan is the location of Hon Hai’s principal
`
`place of business and the place of incorporation; Hon Hai is not even registered to do business in
`
`Florida. Thus, Hon Hai has no “systematic and continuous” contacts that would render Florida
`
`“home.”
`
`As to specific jurisdiction, BNR alleges that the patent claims arise from the manufacture
`
`and distribution of the Accused Products. In an attempt to establish jurisdiction, BNR’s Complaint
`
`implies that Hon Hai is a manufacturer or distributor of the Accused Products. Complaint at ¶ 113.
`
`Hon Hai is not. Hon Hai does not make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import any of the Accused
`
`Products to, or on behalf of, Nokia. Nor is Hon Hai involved in the assembly, distribution, sale,
`
`or use of the Accused Products inside or outside the United States. Because Hon Hai does not
`
`
`1 Hon Hai is making a special appearance only for the purpose of challenging jurisdiction.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 7 of 21
`
`manufacture or distribute the Accused Products anywhere, it cannot manufacture and distribute
`
`the Accused Products in a manner that purposefully targets the State of Florida.
`
`At bottom, Hon Hai has no connections to Florida, let alone those necessary to establish
`
`personal jurisdiction.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Jurisdictional Facts
`
`A.
`Hon Hai is an electronics component manufacturer incorporated under the laws of Taiwan,
`
`with its principal place of business located in Tucheng Industrial Zone, Tucheng District, New
`
`Taipei City, Taiwan. Huang Decl. at ¶ 6 (attached hereto as Ex. A). In relation to its business in
`
`the United States, Hon Hai has been continuously registered to do business in California since
`
`1999, where it maintains an office. Id. at ¶ 14. As Hon Hai has informed BNR, Hon Hai would
`
`not contest personal jurisdiction in California.
`
`Hon Hai does not have contacts with the State of Florida. Id. at ¶ 5. Hon Hai has no
`
`offices, facilities, warehouses, stores, agents, or employees in the State of Florida. Id. at ¶ 7. Hon
`
`Hai does not own, lease, possess, maintain, or control any real property in the State of Florida. Id.
`
`Hon Hai is not presently registered to do business in Florida, does not pay any taxes in Florida,
`
`and does not have accounts with any banks or financial institutions in the State of Florida. Id.
`
`Hon Hai has no physical or economic connections to the State of Florida. Id.
`
`Hon Hai does not provide any services in the State of Florida. Id. at ¶ 8. Hon Hai does not
`
`currently make, use, sell, or offer to sell any products in the State of Florida. Id. at ¶ 10. It does
`
`not presently ship any products to the State of Florida, and has no business there whatsoever. Id.
`
`Hon Hai does not specifically target Florida with any marketing activity. Id. at ¶ 9. Hon Hai does
`
`not attend trade shows in the State of Florida, purchase advertising space in Florida newspapers,
`
`or distribute any physical marketing materials in Florida, such as catalogs or brochures. Id. Hon
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 8 of 21
`
`Hai does not provide any technical support or guidance targeting individuals located in the State
`
`of Florida. Id.
`
`As to the Accused Products, Hon Hai does not make, use, sell, or offer to sell any of the
`
`Accused Products to, or on behalf of, Nokia. Id. at ¶ 5. Hon Hai has no involvement in the
`
`assembly, distribution, sale, or use of the Accused Products in the United States. Id. at ¶ 15. Even
`
`outside the United States, Hon Hai does not oversee or control the making, use, sale, distribution,
`
`or offers for sale of any Accused Products. Id. at ¶ 16. Hon Hai sells components to third party
`
`companies. Id. To the extent that any such components may be used in the Accused Products,
`
`Hon Hai does not oversee or control which products incorporate the components, how the
`
`components are assembled, or where the products incorporating the components are sold. Id. Hon
`
`Hai transfers possession of the mobile device components outside the United States, and has no
`
`control of the mobile device components after they are transferred. Id.
`
`BNR’s Allegations
`
`B.
`The Complaint alleges infringement of 13 different patents (the “Asserted Patents”)
`
`relating to consumer electronic devices and components thereof. See, e.g., Complaint at ¶¶ 117,
`
`140, 162, 184, 208, 228, 248, 267, 289, 310, 327, 345, 368. Specifically, the Complaint alleges
`
`that various Nokia phones and tablets infringe the Asserted Patents. Id. at ¶ 113. But the
`
`Complaint does not contain individualized allegations of purportedly infringing conduct by Hon
`
`Hai (or the other defendants). Instead, for each of the 13 patents—and for each of the 16
`
`defendants—the Complaint contains the following boilerplate, conclusory allegations of direct
`
`infringement:
`
`Defendants have infringed and are infringing, individually and/or jointly, either literally
`or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least one claim of the [number] patent, e.g. claim
`1, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq., directly and/or indirectly, by making, using,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 9 of 21
`
`offering for sale, selling, offering for lease, leasing in the United States, and/or importing
`into the United States without authority or license, the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 124, 145, 171, 192, 215, 232, 251, 267, 294, 315, 327, 352, 377. The Complaint’s indirect
`
`infringement allegations are also boilerplate:
`
`In particular, each Defendant’s actions that aid and abet others such as its partners,
`customers, clients, and end users to infringe include advertising and distributing the
`Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 131, 153, 176, 199, 220, 239, 258, 280, 301, 319, 337, 360, 384.
`
`The relevant jurisdictional allegations take a similar, generic approach. Other than
`
`identifying the defendant’s principal place of business, there are no specific facts alleged. Instead,
`
`the jurisdictional allegations only contain legal conclusions as follows:
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd. is a
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of China, with its principal place of
`business at No. 2, Ziyou St., Tucheng Dist., New Taipei City 236, Taiwan. Upon
`information and belief, Defendant sells and offers to sell products and services throughout
`the United States, including in this judicial district, and introduces products and services
`into the stream of commerce that incorporate infringing technology, knowing that they
`would be sold in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`Id. at ¶ 6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Hon Hai is not a resident in the United States
`and may be sued in any judicial district. Defendant has committed acts of infringement
`in this District and has a regular and established place of business within this District.
`
`Id. at ¶ 24.
`
`Upon information and belief, each Defendant is subject to this Court’s general and
`specific personal jurisdiction, because each Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts
`within the State of Florida and this District, pursuant to due process and/or the Florida
`Long Arm Statute, because each Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privileges
`of conducting business in the State of Florida and in this District, because each Defendant
`regularly conducts and solicits business within the State of Florida and within this
`District, and because Plaintiff’s causes of action arise directly from each of Defendants’
`business contacts and other activities in the State of Florida and this District.
`
`Id. at ¶ 35. Notably, the Complaint does not include any underlying factual allegations supporting
`
`its legal conclusion that Hon Hai introduces products and services into the stream of commerce to
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 10 of 21
`
`be sold in Florida.
`
`III.
`
` LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“Personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant is appropriate if the relevant state’s
`
`long-arm statute permits the assertion of jurisdiction without violating due process.” 3D Sys., Inc.
`
`v. Aarotech Labs., Inc., 160 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“Aarotech”). Federal Circuit law
`
`governs the instant Motion. Id. (“While we defer to the interpretation of a state’s long-arm statute
`
`given by that state’s highest court, . . . when analyzing personal jurisdiction for purposes of
`
`compliance with federal due process, Federal Circuit law, rather than regional circuit law,
`
`applies.”). The minimum contacts required for personal jurisdiction may be analyzed in terms of
`
`general or specific jurisdiction. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S.
`
`408, 414 (1984).
`
`The Standard for General Jurisdiction
`
`A.
`“The reach of Florida’s general jurisdiction provision, Fla. Stat. § 48.193(2), extends to the
`
`limits on personal jurisdiction imposed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
`
`Atmos Nation LLC v. Alibaba Grp. Holding Ltd., No. 15-cv-62104, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33228,
`
`at *7 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2016) (“Atmos”) (citing Fraser v. Smith, 594 F.3d 842, 846 (11th Cir.
`
`2010)). “Thus, the Court’s long-arm statute and due process analysis collapses into a single inquiry
`
`and case law construing section 48.193(2) is relevant.” J.P. Morgan Tr. Co. v. Potash Corp. of
`
`Sask., Inc. (In re Farmland Indus.), No. 05-cv-587, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23872, at *13 n.10
`
`(M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2007).
`
`“A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign (sister-state or foreign-country)
`
`corporations to hear any and all claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so
`
`‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” Goodyear
`
`Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011) (“Goodyear”). An
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 11 of 21
`
`“‘exceptional case’” must be presented to establish general jurisdiction anywhere other than a state
`
`of incorporation and the location of the principal place of business. BNSF Ry. v. Tyrrell, 137 S.
`
`Ct. 1549, 1558–59 (2017) (“BNSF”) (quoting Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 136–37
`
`(2014)).
`
`The Standard for Specific Jurisdiction in Florida Statute 48.193(1)
`
`B.
`“Florida Statute 48.193(1)(a)(2) . . . provides for jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant
`
`where the defendant ‘commit[ed] a tortious act within this state.’” Atmos, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`33228, at *9. In a patent infringement case, Subparagraph (6) has the same scope as
`
`Subparagraph (2):
`
`allow[ing] for jurisdiction where a non-resident defendant “[c]aus[ed] injury to persons
`or property within this state arising out of an act or omission . . . outside this state, if, at
`or about the time of the injury, either: a. The defendant was engaged in solicitation or
`service activities within this state; or b. Products, materials, or things processed, serviced,
`or manufactured by the defendant anywhere were used or consumed within this state in
`the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use.”
`
`Id. at *9–10; see also F & G Research, Inc. v. Dynapoint (Taiwan) Inc., No. 06-cv-60904, 2007
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97040, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2007) (“Dynapoint”) (“Although the term
`
`‘arising from’ is somewhat broader than the concept of proximate cause, under Florida law there
`
`must nevertheless be some ‘direct affiliation,’ ‘nexus,’ or ‘substantial connection’ between the
`
`cause of action and the activities within the state.”) (citation omitted).
`
`The Standard for Specific Jurisdiction in the Due Process Clause
`
`C.
`Specific jurisdiction is available “if the defendant has ‘purposefully directed’ his activities
`
`at residents of the forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that ‘arise out of or relate
`
`to’ those activities.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985) (“Burger King”).
`
`“This purposeful availment requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a
`
`jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts or of the unilateral
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 12 of 21
`
`activity of another party or a third person.” Id. at 475. The Federal Circuit applies “a three-prong
`
`minimum contacts test for determining if specific jurisdiction exist[s]: (1) whether the defendant
`
`purposefully directed its 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.”
`
`Aarotech, 160 F.3d at 1378. No specific jurisdiction over Hon Hai exists under this test, for the
`
`reasons set out below.
`
`The Shifting of Burdens on a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2)
`
`D.
`Where a district court elects to decide the issue of personal jurisdiction without an
`
`evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff’s initial burden is to “allege sufficient facts to make out a prima
`
`facie case of jurisdiction” over the nonresident defendant. Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209,
`
`1214 (11th Cir. 1999). Pursuant to Twombly/Iqbal, conclusory allegations are not credited, and
`
`cannot establish a prima facie case of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Marrero v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
`
`Co., No. 20-cv-1147, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97838, at *5 (M.D. Fla. May 24, 2021), report and
`
`recommendation adopted sub nom. Marrero v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 20-cv-1147, 2021
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116036 (M.D. Fla. June 22, 2021) (“[T]he sparse allegations in the Complaint
`
`pertaining to personal jurisdiction are wholly conclusory and do not satisfy the Twombly/Iqbal
`
`standard.”); AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp., 689 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“As
`
`the district court aptly observed, AFTG’s complaint represents nothing more than ‘bare formulaic
`
`accusation’ that the defendants maintain sufficient contacts with Wyoming.”). “If a plaintiff pleads
`
`sufficient material facts to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction, the burden shifts to the
`
`defendant to challenge the plaintiff’s allegations by affidavits or other competent evidence.”
`
`Dynapoint, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97040, at *7 (emphasis added). “If the defendant sufficiently
`
`challenges plaintiff’s assertions, then the plaintiff must affirmatively support its jurisdiction
`
`allegations and may not merely rely upon the factual allegations set forth in the complaint.”
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 13 of 21
`
`Structural Panels, Inc. v. Tex. Aluminum Indus., Inc., 814 F. Supp. 1058, 1064 (M.D. Fla. 1992),
`
`report and recommendation adopted, 814 F. Supp. 1058 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`2
`
`A. Hon Hai Is Not Subject to General Jurisdiction in the State of Florida
`There can be no legitimate dispute that general jurisdiction does not apply to this action.
`
`In BNSF, the Supreme Court unanimously held that an entity’s place of incorporation and principal
`
`place of business are its “home,” absent “exceptional” circumstances. 137 S. Ct. at 1558–59
`
`(unanimously holding that “2,000 miles of railroad track and more than 2,000 employees in
`
`Montana” is insufficient to establish general jurisdiction, because “in-state business, we clarified
`
`in Daimler and Goodyear, does not suffice to permit the assertion of general jurisdiction”). Here,
`
`Hon Hai is incorporated in Taiwan, where its principal place of business is also located. Huang
`
`Decl. at ¶ 6. In contrast, Hon Hai has no physical presence in Florida. Id. at 7. Nor does Hon Hai
`
`do any business in Florida. Id. Hon Hai is therefore “at home” in Taiwan, not Florida. Sanho
`
`Corp. v. Kaijet Tech. Int’l Ltd., 18-cv-05385, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108318, at *12 (N.D. Ga.
`
`June 9, 2021) (“It is undisputed that MCT is incorporated and maintains its principal place of
`
`business in Taiwan. Thus, it cannot properly be considered ‘at home’ in Georgia.”).
`
`BNR’s generic and conclusory assertion that Hon Hai is “subject to this Court’s general
`
`. . . personal jurisdiction” (Complaint at ¶ 35) is unsupported, incorrect, and insufficient. Even
`
`assuming that Hon Hai sells products in Florida (which it does not), the Supreme Court has
`
`repeatedly rejected the assertion that the mere sale of a product into the stream of commerce is
`
`sufficient to assert general jurisdiction in a forum state. Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 760–61; see also,
`
`e.g., Goodyear, 131 S. Ct. at 2856 (rejecting a lower court’s finding of jurisdiction and stating that
`
`“[u]nder the sprawling view of general jurisdiction urged by respondents . . . any substantial
`
`manufacturer or seller of goods would be amenable to suit, on any claim for relief, wherever its
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 14 of 21
`
`products are distributed”); Atlantis Hydroponics, Inc. v. Int’l Growers Supply, Inc., 915 F. Supp.
`
`2d 1365, 1375–76 (N.D. Ga. 2013) (“[S]imply selling products in a forum through the stream of
`
`commerce is not sufficient to support general jurisdiction.”). Moreover, there are no facts here
`
`that would support an exception. Hon Hai has no connections to Florida, let alone those that would
`
`support a rare or “‘exceptional case’” in which a corporation could, theoretically, become subject
`
`to general jurisdiction in a location other than the state of incorporation and the principal place of
`
`business. BNSF, 137 S. Ct. at 1558–59 (finding “2,000 miles of railroad track and more than 2,000
`
`employees in Montana” insufficient for general jurisdiction in Montana).
`
`B.
`
`Hon Hai Is Not Subject to Specific Jurisdiction Under Florida Statute 48.193(1)
`
`Hon Hai lacks the connections to Florida that are necessary to establish specific personal
`
`jurisdiction. Hon Hai does not make, use, sell, or offer to sell any of the Accused Products in the
`
`State of Florida, or anywhere else in the United States. Huang Decl. at ¶¶ 5, 15–16. Nor does Hon
`
`Hai have any involvement in the assembly, distribution, sale, or use of the Accused Products inside
`
`or outside the United States. Id. at ¶¶5, 15–17.
`
`The Complaint’s conclusory jurisdictional allegations are uncredited and insufficient to
`
`support a finding of jurisdiction over Hon Hai. Shipping & Transit, LLC v. WOV, LLC, No. 16-
`
`cv-80860, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130501, at *14 (S.D. Fla. Sep. 21, 2016) (dismissing complaint
`
`for lack of personal jurisdiction under the Florida long-arm statute, because “Plaintiff conclusively
`
`states, with no further factual allegation or support, that ‘things processed by [Defendant], were
`
`and are used by [Defendant’s] customers in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce, trade
`
`or use’”); AFTG-TG, 689 F.3d at 1365 (“As the district court aptly observed, AFTG’s complaint
`
`represents nothing more than ‘bare formulaic accusation’ that the defendants maintain sufficient
`
`contacts with Wyoming.”). “Plaintiff’s burden in alleging personal jurisdiction is to plead
`
`sufficient material facts to establish the basis for exercise of such jurisdiction.” Future Tech.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 15 of 21
`
`Today, Inc. v. OSF Healthcare Sys., 218 F.3d 1247, 1249 (11th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). The
`
`Complaint as a whole contains mere conclusions, not material facts, with respect to Hon Hai’s
`
`purported association with this district. See, e.g., Complaint at ¶ 6 (“Upon information and belief,
`
`Defendant sells and offers to sell products . . . knowing that they would be sold in this judicial
`
`district[.]”); id. at ¶ 24 (“Defendant [Hon Hai] has committed acts of infringement in this District
`
`and has a regular established place of business within this District.”); id. at ¶ 35 (“[E]ach Defendant
`
`purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Florida and in
`
`this District, because each Defendant regularly conducts and solicits business within the State of
`
`Florida and within this District[.]”). Therefore, the Complaint does not establish a prima facie
`
`showing of specific jurisdiction under the Florida long-arm statute.
`
`Nor can BNR make such a showing of specific jurisdiction. Hon Hai does not “sell
`
`[Accused Products] . . . knowing that they would be sold in this judicial district.” Compare
`
`Complaint at ¶ 6, with Huang Decl. at ¶¶ 15–17. Hon Hai neither “has a regular established place
`
`of business within this District,” nor can it have “committed acts of infringement in this District,”
`
`because it has no contacts with this District. Compare Complaint at ¶ 24, with Huang Decl. at
`
`¶¶ 5–13. The record is also clear that Hon Hai does not “regularly conduct[] and solicit[] business
`
`within the State of Florida and within this District.” Compare Complaint at ¶ 35, with Huang Decl.
`
`at ¶¶ 5–13. Any purported facts supporting jurisdiction in this District contained in the Complaint
`
`are disputed—and now BNR “must affirmatively support its jurisdictional allegations and may not
`
`merely rely upon the factual allegations set forth in its complaint.” Structural Panels, 814 F.
`
`Supp. at 1064 (emphasis added).
`
`In short, “[t]he only facts presented here illustrate that [Hon Hai] has no contacts with
`
`Florida; it does not conduct business in Florida; and it has no offices, employees, assets or leases
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-22706-RNS Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/19/2022 Page 16 of 21
`
`in Florida.” Dynapoint, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97040, at *15. There has been no showing that
`
`Hon Hai actually engages in any activity within the State, let alone the “substantial and not isolated
`
`activity within this State” required to support jurisdiction. Id. And BNR cannot make such a
`
`showing. Therefore, BNR “has failed to satisfy the requirements of section 48.193 of the Florida
`
`long-arm statute.” Id.
`
`C.
`
`Hon Hai Is Not Subject to Specific Jurisdiction Under the Due Process Clause
`
`1. Hon Hai did not purposefully direct any conduct toward Florida.
`
`There is no purposeful availment through the general stream of commerce to give rise to
`
`specific jurisdiction. “‘[A]wareness that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product
`
`into the forum State’ is not enough to establish personal jurisdiction.” Zanakis v. Scanreco, Inc.,
`
`No. 18-cv-21813, 2