S n e l l & W i l m e r
L . L . P . L A W O F F I C E S O n e A r i z o n a C e n t e r , 4 0 0 E . V a n B u r e n , S u i t e 1 9 0 0 P h o e n i x , A r i z o n a 8 5 0 0 4 - 2 2 0 2 6 0 2 . 3 8 2 . 6 0 0 0
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This is a civil action is brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act,28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 & 2202, and arises under the patent laws of the United States, codifiedat 35 U.S.C. §§ 1
. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claim fordeclaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1338(a).4.
Protegrity Corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicialdistrict pursuant to Rule 4(k)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ProtegrityCorporation is a Cayman Islands corporation, and is not subject to jurisdiction in anystate’s courts of general jurisdiction. Exercising jurisdiction over Protegrity Corporationin this case is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.5.
Protegrity Corporation is also subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to,and may alternatively be served in accordance with, Rule 4.2(a) and Rule 4.2(k) of theArizona Rules of Civil Procedure.6.
Protegrity Corporation is an alien, and venue is proper in this judicialdistrict pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d).7.
On March 19, 2013, Protegrity Corporation filed a complaint in the UnitedStates District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that EPS infringes U.S. PatentNo. 8,402,281 and U.S. Patent No. 6,321,201. Accordingly, an actual, concrete, and justiciable controversy exists between EPS and Protegrity Corporation concerning thevalidity and infringement of these two patents.8.
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut does nothave personal jurisdiction over EPS, and venue is improper in that district. Consequently,this declaratory judgment action is the first-filed action that has been filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. In the complaint that Protegrity Corporation filed in the District of Connecticut, venue is predicated solely upon 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Under that statute,venue is only proper if the defendant corporation was subject to personal jurisdiction atthe time the action is commenced. This would require,
, that EPS had minimum