2010-1100 Opp to Motion

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

O

PPOSITION TO

M

OTION TO

D

ISMISS

Case No. C 08-02912 JSW MEJ

RON E. SHULMAN, State Bar No. 178263rshulman@wsgr.comJULIE M. HOLLOWAY, State Bar No. 196942 jholloway@wsgr.comS. MICHAEL SONG State Bar No. 198656msong@wsgr.comTUNG-ON KONG, State Bar No. 205871tkong@wsgr.comWILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional Corporation650 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, CA 94304-1050Telephone: (650) 493-9300Facsimile: (650) 565-5100M. CRAIG TYLER,

Pro Hac Vice

ctyler@wsgr.comWILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional Corporation900 South Capital of Texas HighwayLas Cimas IV, Fifth FloorAustin, Texas 78746-5546Telephone: (512) 338.5400Facsimile: (512) 338.5499Attorneys for Plaintiff NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONNUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,Plaintiff,v.ABBYY SOFTWARE HOUSE, et al.Defendant.))))))))))))Case No.: C 08-02912 JSW MEJNUANCE COMMUNICATIONS INC.’SOPPOSITION TO ABBYY SOFTWARELTD.,’S AND ABBYY PRODUCTIONLLC’S MOTION TO DISMISSDate: August 21, 2009Time: 9:00 a.m.Court: Courtroom No. 11Hon. Jeffrey S. White

Case3:08-cv-02912-JSW Document119 Filed07/10/09 Page1 of 21

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

O

PPOSITION TO

M

OTION TO

D

ISMISS

Case No. C 08-02912 JSW MEJ

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Defendants ABBYY Software and ABBYY Production are present in and maintainsignificant contacts with California. According to their own public statements, ABBYYSoftware and ABBYY Production comprise the leadership of a single “international company”that has a “regional office” in Milpitas, California. ABBYY infringing products are found on theshelf in retail outlets throughout the state and are sold by numerous California companies.ABBYY Software and ABBYY Production’s activities in California result from their scheme to“infiltrate” and “conquer” the United States market with infringing products. In fact, ABBYYSoftware and ABBYY Production have stated their intent to seek revenge against plaintiff Nuance for filing this litigation by increasing sales of infringing products in the United States.Under these circumstances, the Court can properly exercise either general or specific jurisdiction over ABBYY Software and ABBYY Production.

See International Shoe Co. v.Washington

, 326 U.S. 310, 320 (1945). (“Presence in the state in this sense has never beendoubted when the activities of the corporation there have not only been continuous andsystematic, but also give rise to the liabilities sued on, even though no consent to be sued orauthorization to an agent to accept service of process has been given.”);

Asahi Metal IndustryCo. v. Superior Court of California

, 480 U.S. 102, 109 (1987) (“The forum state does not exceedits powers under the Due Process Clause if it asserts personal jurisdiction over a corporation thatdelivers its products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will bepurchased by customers in the forum State.”) (quoting

World-Wide Volkswagon Corp. v.Woodson

, 444 U.S. 286, 297-98 (1980)).In addition, Nuance properly served ABBYY Production in accordance with Rule4(f)(2)(C)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ABBYY Production’s argument thatNuance did not properly effect service in accordance with the Hague Convention is inappositebecause there is no agreed-upon means of service between the Russian Federation and the UnitedStates.

Case3:08-cv-02912-JSW Document119 Filed07/10/09 Page2 of 21

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

O

PPOSITION TO

M

OTION TO

D

ISMISS

i

Case No. C 08-02912 JSW MEJ

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED.........................................................2III. STATEMENT OF FACTS..................................................................................................2A. ABBYY Defendants and Their Business................................................................2B. ABBYY Defendants Comprise a Single “International Company”........................3C. Defendants ABBYY Software Ltd. and ABBYY Production LLC Intend to“Conquer” the United States with Infringing Products...........................................3D. ABBYY Software and ABBYY Production’s Scheme to “Infiltrate” and“Conquer” the United States Has Resulted In Substantial Business Contactsin California.............................................................................................................4E. ABBYY Software and ABBYY Production Have a Regional Office InMilpitas, California .................................................................................................5F. Service of ABBYY Production LLC Was Proper...................................................6G. The Russian Federation Unilaterally Suspended All Judicial CooperationWith the United States in Civil and Commercial Matters.......................................6IV. ARGUMENT REGARDING PERSONAL JURISDICTION............................................6A. Applicable Legal Standard......................................................................................6B. The Court Can Properly Exercise General Jurisdiction Over ABBYYSoftware and ABBYY Production..........................................................................7C. The Court Can Properly Exercise Specific Jurisdiction Over ABBYYSoftware and ABBYY Production..........................................................................91) ABBYY Software and ABBYY Production have purposefullydirected their activities at California Residents.........................................102) This Action Arises from ABBYY Software and ABBYY ProductionActivities Related to Infringing Products..................................................103) Jurisdiction Over ABBYY Software and ABBYY Production IsReasonable and Fair..................................................................................11D. ABBYY Software and ABBYY Production’s Arguments Against PersonalJurisdiction Are Spurious......................................................................................11V. ARGUMENT REGARDING SERVICE OF SUMMONS...............................................13A. Nuance Properly Served ABBYY Production LLC..............................................13B. The Hague Convention Is Not an Agreed-Upon Method of Service inRussia....................................................................................................................13

Case3:08-cv-02912-JSW Document119 Filed07/10/09 Page3 of 21