Your browser cannot display this PDF inline.
Download the full opinion (PDF)Background
MEMS Innovations, LLC is a Texas LLC and exclusive licensee of two patents covering piezoelectric MEMS transducers and ultrasonic sensors (U.S. Patents 7,812,505 and 8,114,697). MEMS sued TDK Corporation (the Japanese parent, “TDK-J”), InvenSense Inc. (a U.S. subsidiary that makes ultrasonic MEMS sensors), and TDK Corporation of America (another U.S. subsidiary) for infringement by Chirp and USSM ultrasonic sensor products. The case was originally filed in the Central District of California and transferred to the Northern District of California. TDK-J moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Corley granted TDK-J’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Circuit law (which governs personal jurisdiction questions in patent cases).
General jurisdiction: MEMS did not seriously argue general jurisdiction, nor could it — TDK-J is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in Japan and is not “essentially at home” in California.
Specific jurisdiction (stream-of-commerce): MEMS relied on allegations that TDK-J’s products enter California through the stream of commerce. But TDK-J’s declarant attested under penalty of perjury that TDK-J does not make, sell, offer to sell, or distribute the accused Chirp or USSM products — that is InvenSense and its Taiwan subsidiary. MEMS’ only counter-evidence was two press releases, which the court found confirmed that InvenSense (not TDK-J) is the entity behind the accused products. The stream-of-commerce allegations as to TDK-J were conclusory and unsupported.
Parent-subsidiary attribution: MEMS also failed to show TDK-J so controlled InvenSense as to make its contacts attributable to the parent. The record contained no evidence of the kind of domination (shared management, co-mingled finances, failure to observe corporate formalities) that would justify piercing the corporate veil for jurisdictional purposes.
Jurisdictional discovery denied: The court refused to authorize jurisdictional discovery, characterizing the request as a fishing expedition. More pointedly, the court observed that MEMS “did not have any legitimate basis for naming TDK-Japan as a defendant in the first instance,” suggesting the inclusion of the Japanese parent may have been a strategic choice rather than a grounded legal conclusion. TDK-J was dismissed. InvenSense and TDK Corporation of America remain as defendants.
Key Takeaways
- Name the right entity. In patent cases involving multinational corporate families, plaintiffs must do pre-filing diligence to identify which entity in the corporate group actually makes, sells, or distributes the accused products. Suing the ultimate parent based on stream-of-commerce alone, without evidence linking the parent to the infringing activity, will fail.
- Press releases can cut both ways. MEMS submitted press releases to establish TDK-J’s role, but the court found they confirmed the opposite — that InvenSense is the relevant operating entity.
- Jurisdictional discovery is not guaranteed. Courts will deny it when the plaintiff has not shown a colorable basis for jurisdiction and appears to be using discovery to find facts that should have been determined before filing.
Why It Matters
Suing foreign parent companies of U.S.-based technology subsidiaries is a common plaintiff strategy in patent cases — the parent often has deeper pockets, and jurisdiction arguments can be difficult for defendants to win at the motion-to-dismiss stage. This ruling is a reminder that the strategy has limits: stream-of-commerce allegations alone, without evidence that the parent itself places the accused products in the forum state’s commerce, will not establish specific jurisdiction under Federal Circuit law. Patent plaintiffs targeting multinational defendants should carefully investigate which entity in the corporate family actually sells or distributes the accused products before naming the overseas parent.