2the laws of Connecticut with its principal place of business at 20 Jennifer Lane, Cromwell,Connecticut, 06416. Upon information and belief, Defendant CML&J has no businessoperations other than the assertion and attempted licensing of its patent.
Jurisdiction and Venue
This is an action for declaratory judgment that the claims of United States Patent No. 8,245,866 are invalid and not infringed. This action is brought under the patent laws of theUnited States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101
. and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§2201
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this Complaint, which arises under the patent laws of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant CML&J is subject to jurisdiction in this District, and therefore deemed to reside in this District; under 28 U.S.C. §1391(c) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to Ball’s claims occurred in thisDistrict; and under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Defendant CML&J is subject to jurisdiction inthis District, and therefore deemed to reside in this District.6.
This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this civil action pursuant to 28U.S.C. §§ 1332(a)(1) and (c)(1) because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different States.7.
This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Ball’s tortious interferenceclaim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because the claim is so related to the declaratory judgmentclaims in the action within the Court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same caseor controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.8.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over CML&J because CML&J continues to