United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
KAYS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Basimah Khulusi, M.D., Inc., alleges Defendant Honeywell
International, Inc., (“Honeywell International”)
infringed on its patent for workplace safety goggles by
making and selling a similar product. Now before the Court is
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative,
Transfer (Doc. 12). Because Plaintiff has failed to make a
prima facie showing that Honeywell International purposefully
availed itself to the forum, the motion to dismiss is
is a Missouri company that patented safety goggles worn over
eyeglasses, which Dr. Basimah Khulusi, a medical doctor,
invented. Honeywell International is a parent company to
organizations that make and sell a variety of consumer and
commercial products. One such subsidiary is Honeywell Safety
Products, USA, Inc., (“Honeywell Safety”) which,
among other things, designs and sells eye protection
December 2015, Plaintiff's counsel sent a licensing
letter to Honeywell International and Honeywell Safety,
offering to license Plaintiff's patent for UVEX goggles,
which are sold on Honeywell Safety's website (Doc. 17-3).
Matthew Smyth, an assistant general counsel of intellectual
property at Honeywell International, replied that he
represented Honeywell Safety and that the company refused to
accept a licensing arrangement with Plaintiff (Doc. 18-1).
Plaintiff then filed this patent-infringement claim against
Honeywell International on June 1, 2018 (Doc. 1). In
response, Honeywell International filed this motion to
dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer, arguing this Court
does not have personal jurisdiction over Honeywell
International, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim, and, at
the least, the case should be transferred to Delaware.
Court addresses only Honeywell International's argument
that this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over it
because that issue is dispositive of this motion.
This Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Honeywell
exercise of personal jurisdiction must comport with the
forum's long-arm statute and with due process.
Graphic Controls Corp. v. Utah Med. Prods., Inc.,
149 F.3d 1382, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Since Missouri's
long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction over
non-residents to the extent permitted by the due process
clause, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 506.500 (2016), the
jurisdictional analysis collapses into a single inquiry,
AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp., 689 F.3d 1358,
1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
process requires a defendant to 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) (quoting
Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940)). The
“minimum contacts” necessary may be specific or
general, but regardless of which is asserted, the primary
focus is the defendant's relationship to the forum.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., San
Francisco Cty., 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1779 (2017).
The Court does not have general jurisdiction over Honeywell
first avers the Court has general jurisdiction over Honeywell
International (Doc. 17 at 18). But neither of the paradigm
bases for general jurisdiction exist since Honeywell
International is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in New Jersey. See Daimler AG v.
Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 137 (2014) (holding the place of
incorporation and principal place of business are paradigm
bases for general jurisdiction). And Honeywell International
certainly cannot be said to have contacts so continuous and
systematic as to render it essentially at home in Missouri.
See id. (holding that the presence of multiple
offices, the direct distribution of thousands of products
accounting for billions of dollars in sales, and the
continuous interactions with customers in the forum are not
enough to support the exercise of general jurisdiction). The
Court does not have general jurisdiction over Honeywell
The Court does not have specific jurisdiction over Honeywell
closer call is whether this Court has specific jurisdiction.
The Federal Circuit has outlined a three-pronged test for
determining whether specific jurisdiction exists: “(1)
whether the defendant purposefully directs activities at 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.”
AFTG-TG, 689 F.3d at 1361. Once the plaintiff has
made a prima facie showing that the first two elements of the
due process requirement are met, the burden shifts to the
defendant to prove jurisdiction is unreasonable. Celgard,
LLC v. SK Innovation Co., 792 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (citation omitted). “[A] district court must
accept the uncontroverted allegations in the
plaintiff's complaint as true and resolve ...