Celgard loses personal jurisdiction arguments at CAFC in SKI case

As to the technology area:


Celgard is a developer and manufacturer of battery
membranes. The membranes Celgard develops are used
to separate chemical cell components in lithium-ion
batteries, preventing contact between the positive and
negative electrodes. Celgard developed a separator
technology that uses a ceramic composite coating
that helps prevent electrical shorting.
Celgard obtained a patent for the ceramic-
coated separator technology, Unit-
ed States Patent No. 6,432,586 (“ ’586 patent”).
This technology is used in rechargeable batteries in
several emerging industries, including electronic vehicles (“EV”)
and consumer electronic (“CE”) devices such as laptops
and cellular phones. Celgard is headquartered in Char-
lotte, North Carolina



The defendant is SKI. The issue is personal jurisdiction.



SKI moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of per-
sonal jurisdiction on the basis of an absence of
evidence that SKI ever sold or offered for sale the accused products
in North Carolina. J.A. 129–31.
In support of its motion, SKI provided a sworn declaration
from a senior managerof SKI, stating that all of SKI’s sales
are to customers outside of the United States. J.A. 111.


As to the analysis:


first, whether the forum state’s long-arm statute permits service of process and, second,
whether the assertion of jurisdiction is consistent with due process.
Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Due process requires that the defendant have suffi-
cient “minimum contacts with [the forum state] such that
maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional no-
tions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’ l Shoe Co. v.
Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)


(...)

Celgard must make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.
Under the prima facie burden, the district court must resolve
all factual disputes in the plaintiff’s favor in evaluating the
jurisdictional question. See, e.g. , Deprenyl Animal Health,
Inc. v. Univ. of Toronto Innovations Found., 297 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2002).



link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1807.Opinion.7-1-2015.1.PDF