United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER
HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT
above-entitled Court, having received and reviewed:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (Dkt. No.
2. Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss or Transfer (Dkt. No. 50),
3. Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss or
Transfer (Dkt. No. 64), all attached declarations and
exhibits, and relevant portions of the record, and rules as
ORDERED that the motion is PARTIALLY GRANTED and PARTIALLY
DENIED. The motion to transfer is GRANTED, and this matter
shall be transferred to the Eastern District of Texas
forthwith; the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
LM Ericsson (“LME”) is a Swedish corporation with
its principal place of business in Stockholm. ¶ 14.
Defendant Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson”) is a
Delaware corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of LME with
its principal place of business in Plano, Texas and an office
in Bellevue. ¶ 15. Ericsson has employees in the State
of Washington and offer products for sale here. ¶ 20.
Defendant organizations are involved in the development and
licensing of Standard Essential Patents (“SEPs”)
in the telecommunications field. ¶¶ 15-17. In order
to insure “interoperability” in the cellular
communication world, Defendants are subscribing members of
various Standard Setting Organizations (“SSOs”),
among them the European Telecommunication Standards Institute
(“ETSI”). ¶¶ 26-28. The organizations
broker agreements to follow a common set of standards which
allows the various products of the various parts of the
telecommunications industry to connect and communicate with
each other. ¶ 29.
to these standards-setting agreements are requirements that
the participants which own SEPs make them available to
everyone either royalty-free or on “fair, reasonable,
and non-discriminatory (‘FRAND') terms.”
These requirements are intended to prevent the abuse of the
monopoly potential represented by the SEPs. ¶¶
34-35. At the heart of this lawsuit is Plaintiff HTC
Corporation's (“HTC”) allegation that
Defendants are offering to license certain SEP technology at
rates which are unreasonable and violate their FRAND
obligations. ¶¶ 50-69. Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants have refused to lower their rates and have
continually threatened patent litigation against HTC.
¶¶ 70-71. Fearing that such litigation could
destroy its business, Plaintiff has paid “substantial
royalties” to Ericsson. ¶ 73. This lawsuit seeks
recoupment of those royalties and prospective relief
enjoining Defendants from further demands for excessive
royalties. FAC, § VI.
jurisdiction can be found in two ways: general and specific.
jurisdiction arises when a defendant's contacts with a
forum are “so constant and pervasive ‘as to
render [the defendant] essentially at home in the forum
state.'” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct.
746, 751 (2014)(quoting ...