Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Tosoh Corporation sued Dental Direkt GmbH for patent infringement. Dental Direkt moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Tosoh responded by seeking jurisdictional discovery before briefing its opposition to dismissal.
The parties agreed that Tosoh could serve five interrogatories and ten requests for production and take four hours of party deposition testimony or, alternatively, a deposition by written questions. Dental Direkt opposed third-party discovery and Tosoh’s proposed timetable, arguing that Tosoh had not connected the company’s U.S. distributors to a cognizable theory of personal jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Tosoh’s motion as modified. It held that Tosoh had identified a potentially cognizable stream-of-commerce theory based on Dental Direkt’s third-party distributors and was entitled to narrowly tailored discovery concerning that theory.
The authorized discovery included five interrogatories, ten document requests, four hours of virtual party deposition testimony, depositions by written questions of the declarant subject to the court’s stated election limitation, and five hours of third-party testimony divided equally between VITA North America and Henry Schein, Inc. The court required completion within 50 days and ordered Tosoh to respond to the dismissal motion within 10 days after discovery closed.
Key Takeaways
- A district court may permit targeted discovery to develop facts bearing on personal jurisdiction.
- A plaintiff need not use the precise phrase “stream of commerce” when its allegations and requested discovery clearly invoke that jurisdictional theory.
- Third-party distributor discovery was appropriate but limited to two identified distributors, with each deposition capped at 2.5 hours.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates how a patent plaintiff may obtain limited discovery into a foreign defendant’s U.S. distribution channels before having to oppose a personal-jurisdiction challenge. It also shows that courts may authorize third-party discovery while imposing specific subject, duration, and briefing limits.