4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to
.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Henkel under Minn. Stat. § 543.19. For example, Henkel transacts business in Minnesota and has continuous and systematic contacts with Minnesota, including intentionally directing its products for sale into the state of Minnesota, maintaining distributor relationships in the state of Minnesota for the sale of its products, and registering to do business in the state of Minnesota. On information and believe, Henkel also, either by itself or through distributors, offers to sell and/or sells hot melt adhesives in this District, including, in particular, hot melt adhesives under the Technomelt brand name, that infringe the patent at issue in this case. 6. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and 1400(b).
7. On December 21, 2004, United States Patent No. 6,833,404 (“the ’404 patent”), entitled “Hot Melts Utilizing a High Glass Transition Temperature Substantially Aliphatic Tackifying Resin,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ’404 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 8. HBF owns the ’404 patent by assignment. 9. Henkel has been on notice of the fact that it makes and sells products that infringe the ’404 patent since at least August 27, 2012, when HBF notified Henkel of its infringement by letter, in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).