This case arises out of a bouncy-house franchise. In my experience, kids liked the Star Trek theme for the party more than they did the bouncy house.
Let’s see – this is a claim concerning counterfeit Baylor-branded sporting good products and the question is whether the defendant “purposefully directed” its activities at … Texas. Hmmm.
Okay, the substance of this MTD on PJ, IV & 1404 to WDTX is interesting, but the formatting’s worth a look as well.
An interesting procedural background to this case, involving a declaratory action in New Jersey which was transferred to Waco.
One of the defendants argued that it was not subject to personal jurisdiction in this patent infringement case filed in Waco, and asked for discovery if the court concluded it had not adduced sufficient facts.
The court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and transferred the case to the SDNY.
Personal jurisdiction was proper, but some of the claims were required to be dismissed.
Judge Godbey concluded that the defendants’ contacts were sufficient.
Headline only a lawyer could love. Facts only a clock nut could care about. (Well, maybe a few lawyers too).
Motion to dismiss claiming both.