Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. v. Laboklin GMBH & Co. KG & University of Bern

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division

October 16, 2017

GENETIC VETERINARY SCIENCES, INC., d/b/a Paw Prints Genetics, Plaintiff,
v.
LABOKLIN GMBH & CO. KG & THE UNIVERSITY OF BERN, Defendants.

          OPINION & ORDER

          Henry Coke Morgan, Jr. Senior United States District Judge

         This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants LABOklin GmbH & Co., KG's, ("LABOklin's") and The University of Bern's (the "University's") (collectively, "Defendants'") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. d/b/a Paw Prints Genetics's ("PPG's" or "Plaintiffs") Complaint ("Motion"). Doc. 29. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIED the Motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Allegations

         This action arises from a patent regarding genotyping labrador retrievers. See Doc. 1 ("Compl."), ¶¶ 9-11. PPG is a Washington corporation with its headquarters in Spokane, WA. Id. ¶ 2. It tests for genetic variations and mutations known to cause diseases in dogs. Id. ¶ 18. The test at issue detects the presence of a mutation in the SUV39H2 gene that causes Hereditary Nasal Parakeratosis ("HNPK"). See Id. ¶¶ 9-11, 18-20. HNPK is a disease that involves "development of crusts and fissures of the nasal planum at a young age." Id. ¶ 10.

         LABOklin sent PPG a cease-and-desist letter accusing it of infringing U.S. Patent No. 9, 157, 114 (the '"114 patent"). Id. ¶ 19. LABOklin is a German company based in Bad Kissingen, Germany, that holds an exclusive license to the ' 114 patent. ¶¶ 3, 17. The owner of the '114 patent, the University, is an agency or instrumentality of Switzerland, Id. ¶4, 7. PPG alleges "[o]n information and belief that the University authorized LABOklin to send the letter. Id. ¶20.

         PPG seeks a declaratory judgment that the '114 patent is invalid. Id. ¶¶ 24-27.

         B. Procedural History

         PPG filed its Complaint on February 22, 2017. Doc. 1. On May 8, 2017, the Court GRANTED Defendants an extension of time to respond to the Complaint. Doc. 21. Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on June 1, 2017. Doc. 29. PPG responded on June 16, 2017. Doc. 38. Defendants replied on June 21, 2017. Doc. 48.

         II. LEGAL STANDARDS

         A. Rule 12(b)(1)

         Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a court may dismiss a claim against a defendant for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal district courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction. Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Allapattah Servs.. Inc.. 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005)). Accordingly, "[t]he objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction... may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation...." Arbaueh v. Y & H Corp.. 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1)). The court may accept evidence on any disputed jurisdictional facts without converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See Richmond. Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co. v. United States. 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991).[1] The plaintiff has the burden of proof on subject matter jurisdiction. Id.

         B. Rule 12(b)(2)

         Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a court may dismiss a defendant from an action for lack of personal jurisdiction. When the court addresses personal jurisdiction on the basis of the complaint and the motion papers, it "must resolve all factual disputes in the plaintiff s favor." Nuance Commc'ns. Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Deprenyl Animal Health. Inc. v. Univ. of Toronto Innovations Found., 297 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).[2] If the complaint and motion papers are inadequate to determine whether personal jurisdiction exists, the court should "take all necessary action" to supplement the record with evidence necessary to make that determination. Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Pedre Promotional Prod., Inc., 395 F.3d 1275, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

         III. ANALYSIS

         Defendants seek dismissal of this case on three grounds: that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over LABOklin, that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the University, and that the University is immune from suit. Doc. 30 at 3-21. In addition, Defendants argue that if the Court dismisses only one of them, it must also dismiss the case for failure to join all necessary and indispensable parties. Id. at 21-27.

         A. Personal Jurisdiction over LABOklin: Patent Long Arm ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.