By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Graphics Properties Holdings Inc. v. Asus Computer International, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-210-LPS (D.Del., June 28, 2013), the Court denied Defendant Asus Computer International, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer the action to the Northern District of California.  In denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the Court found that it had five potential bases for asserting personal jurisdiction over defendant, including jurisdiction under Section 3104(c)(3) of the Delaware Long Arm statute based on “use” of the accused product in Delaware.  See id. at 5-6.  The Court also found that plaintiff’s claims for direct infringement and indirect infringement against defendant arose from or are directly related to the delivery of the accused products in Delaware and, thus, the nexus requirement of Section 3104(c)(3) was satisfied.  Id. at 6-7.

A complete copy of the Court’s Memorandum Opinion is attached.