United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division
WAPP TECH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and WAPP TECH CORP.
MICRO FOCUS INTERNATIONAL, PLC
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court is Plaintiffs Wapp Tech Limited Partnership
and Wapp Tech Corp.'s Motion: (1) to Strike Defendant
Micro Focus International, PLC's Supplemental Brief
Regarding the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction; and (2) for Clarification of the Court's
Prior Order (Dkt. #41). Having considered the motion and
relevant pleadings, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion
to strike and provides clarification of its prior order.
Motion to Dismiss
filed this suit on July 2, 2018, alleging patent infringement
of United States Patent Nos. 9, 971, 678, 9, 298, 864, and 8,
924, 192 (Dkt. #1). On October 17, 2018, Defendant filed a
motion to dismiss (Dkt. #12). Defendant moves to dismiss
Plaintiffs' Complaint arguing: (1) the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over Defendant and (2) Plaintiffs
failed to properly serve Defendant. Plaintiffs filed a
response to Defendant's motion on November 1, 2018 (Dkt.
#15). Defendant filed a reply to the motion on November 8,
2018 (Dkt. #16). Defendant's motion remains pending.
careful review of Defendant's motion to dismiss, the
Court ordered the parties to conduct jurisdictional discovery
on December 20, 2018:
The Court ORDERS the parties to engage in
limited jurisdictional discovery to determine whether the
Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
Within fifteen (15) days of this
Order, Plaintiffs shall serve on Defendant discovery requests
intended to determine whether Defendant is subject to
personal jurisdiction. Defendant shall have
fifteen (15) days from the receipt
of Plaintiffs' discovery requests to respond. The parties
shall have fifteen (15) days from
the date Defendant responds to Plaintiffs' discovery
requests to supplement or amend the pleadings.
(Dkt. #17 at p. 5) (emphasis in original). This 45-day period
expired on February 3, 2019.
parties engaged in jurisdictional discovery, a discovery
dispute arose. Accordingly, on January 16, 2019, Defendant
filed a Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #18). Defendant
requested a protective order because it believed
Plaintiffs' jurisdictional discovery requests were (1)
improperly broad; (2) related to piercing the veil-a theory
not previously asserted by Plaintiffs; and (3) were
irrelevant as they related to the merits of the case, not to
jurisdiction (Dkt. #18 at pp. 12-18). The parties filed a
response and reply to the motion (Dkt. #19; Dkt. #22). The
Court denied Defendant's motion for protective order
finding, “Overall, [Defendant] cannot argue that the
contacts cited by [Plaintiffs] are attributable only to its
subsidiaries and simultaneously contend that [Plaintiffs are]
not entitled to explore [Defendant's] relationship with
these subsidiaries.” (Dkt. #24 at p. 4). As a result,
on February 7, 2019, the Court ordered:
The parties shall complete jurisdictional discovery with
twenty-one (21) days of this
order-February 28, 2019. The
parties shall amend or supplement the briefing related to
[Defendant's] motion to dismiss within eight
(8) days of completing jurisdictional
discovery-March 8, 2019.
(Dkt. #24 at pp. 4-5) (emphasis in original).
Amended Complaint, Supplemental Briefing, and Motion to
March 8, 2019, the parties filed supplemental briefing on
Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to the Court's
February 7 order (Dkt. #30; Dkt. #32). On the same day,
without seeking leave of court, Plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint adding five additional parties-Seattle SpinCo Inc.,
EntIT Software LLC, EntCo Interactive (Israel) Ltd., Entco
Government Software LLC, and Micro Focus (US) Inc. (Dkt. #28
March 12, 2019, without seeking leave of court, Defendant
filed a reply to Plaintiffs' supplemental briefing (Dkt.
#36). The next day, Plaintiffs filed the motion
at issue (Dkt. #41). Defendant filed a ...