Fluidigm Corporation v. BioMerieux, SA

Background

Fluidigm Corporation alleged that bioMérieux SA directly infringed, induced infringement of, and contributed to infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,131,934. The patent concerns methods for conducting nucleic-acid amplification reactions and detecting polynucleotide sequences. Fluidigm alleged that bioMérieux marketed, made, used, sold, offered to sell, and encouraged use of products related to the BioFire FilmArray system.

BioMérieux is a French corporation. Its declaration stated that it had no physical corporate presence in the United States and did not make, use, offer to sell, or sell the FilmArray system in the United States or import it into the United States. The declaration identified BioFire Diagnostics, LLC, a wholly owned but legally separate subsidiary, as the entity that designed, developed, manufactured, and sold the system in the United States. BioFire had its own management, board, and accounting system.

BioMérieux moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction, under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue, and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Fluidigm argued that the court had specific jurisdiction based on BioMérieux’s alleged California activities and, alternatively, that Rule 4(k)(2) supplied jurisdiction based on BioMérieux’s contacts with the United States as a whole.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority over a particular defendant. The court applied Federal Circuit law because the jurisdictional issue was closely connected to patent law. It explained that specific jurisdiction requires a defendant to purposefully direct activities at the forum, that the claim arise from or relate to those activities, and that exercising jurisdiction be reasonable and fair.

The court concluded that Fluidigm’s allegations were contradicted by the declaration showing that BioMérieux did not make or sell the accused products in the United States and had no United States customers for those products. The court also rejected attributing BioFire’s contacts to BioMérieux solely because BioFire was BioMérieux’s subsidiary.

The court further found that Fluidigm had not shown that BioMérieux’s partnerships or agreements with companies in the district, or its sponsorship of a 2016 Southern California scientific meeting, were connected to the accused products. The court therefore held that BioMérieux had not purposefully directed relevant activities at California residents and that Fluidigm’s patent claims did not arise from or relate to relevant BioMérieux contacts with California.

The court also rejected Fluidigm’s reliance on Rule 4(k)(2). That rule can provide personal jurisdiction for a federal-law claim when the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction and exercising jurisdiction is consistent with federal law and the Constitution. BioMérieux identified Utah and North Carolina as possible forums and therefore consented to jurisdiction there for purposes of the rule. Rule 4(k)(2) consequently did not provide a basis for jurisdiction in this case.

Jurisdictional Discovery and Disposition

Although Fluidigm had not requested jurisdictional discovery, the court permitted it because some facts relevant to jurisdiction were disputed and discovery could produce facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction. The court granted BioMérieux’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction with leave to amend, granted jurisdictional discovery, and did not reach the arguments concerning improper venue or failure to state a claim.

Fluidigm was required to file any amended complaint within 60 days. The court stated that failure to file on time, or failure to correct the identified deficiencies, would result in dismissal of Fluidigm’s claims against BioMérieux with prejudice. The court also stated that Fluidigm could not add new causes of action or parties without a stipulation or the court’s permission. Judge Lucy H. Koh signed the order.