May 28, 2013
LES Insights
Authored by Forrest A. Jones, D. Brian Kacedon, and John C. Paul
In small, start-up companies, the lines between personal activities and business pursuits can blur, especially with the popularity of social-media sites like Facebook and Twitter and non-traditional funding platforms like Kickstarter. This blurring of lines can lead to interesting issues in cases involving traditional legal doctrines, such as personal jurisdiction. A recent Virginia district court case, Robinson v. Bartlow,1 considered whether the court had personal jurisdiction over corporate officers of a company accused of patent infringement based, in part, on that company's Kickstarter ad.
Defendants JoeyBra LLC and its founders reside in Washington state and sell JoeyBra, a pocketed bra that "discreetly holds a cellphone, ID, and key." After entering a business-plan competition in Washington, they used the popular website Kickstarter to find financing and began making sales through JoeyBra's website.
Plaintiff Charles Robinson believed the JoeyBra infringed his 2001 design patent on a bra with pockets and sued JoeyBra and its founders in Virginia, asking the court for a preliminary injunction to stop the defendants' sales through JoeyBra's website and other promotional activities. The defendants opposed the preliminary injunction and moved to dismiss the matter for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.
The district court first considered the merits of Mr. Robinson's preliminary-injunction motion. Focusing primarily on the likelihood of success on the merits, the court denied the motion and cited the Federal Circuit's Egyptian Goddess opinion, explaining that analyzing infringement of a design patent requires an "overall comparison" between two designs in light of the prior art. The idea of a bra with pockets, according to the court, is not a very novel element. And because this basic idea was not novel, the court found that the difference in size and function of the pocket was dispositive. The pocket on Mr. Robinson's design is much smaller, fit for a key, whereas the JoeyBra pocket is larger and holds a smartphone and credit cards—something not possible with Mr. Robinson's design.
The court also found that the other elements of the preliminary-injunction test weighed in favor of the defendants: (1) whether Robinson would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction; (2) whether the balance of equities was in Robinson's favor; and (3) whether an injunction is in the public's interest. The court based this conclusion largely on the lack of evidence of harm and that Robinson did not have a product for sale while the defendants did.
The court then considered the defendants' motion to dismiss claims against the individuals as defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction; the court had earlier denied a motion to dismiss claims against JoeyBra LLC. The motion regarding the individuals was based on the lack of any connection between the founders of JoeyBra LLC and Virginia (where the court was located). Three of JoeyBra's donors from Kickstarter were located in Virginia, and Robinson relied on this fact combined with the personal nature of the Kickstarter ad to support his argument that the founders were subject to jurisdiction in Virginia.
The court disagreed, finding that the defendants' ad on Kickstarter was available equally in all states and was not targeted to Virginia. Therefore, it could not serve as the basis for personal jurisdiction. The court also found that the fiduciary-shield doctrine protected the defendants because they were acting in their official duties for JoeyBra LLC. While the contact information for the Kickstarter ad directed viewers to one of the founder's personal Facebook accounts, the ad nonetheless identified JoeyBra LLC as the party developing JoeyBra, and all Kickstarter donations went to JoeyBra LLC and not the individuals who founded and ran the company.
In this case, the fiduciary shield protected the individual corporate officers from suit in a in another state because their only contact with the state was a result of official duties for the company. While advertising and sales efforts through crowd-funding services like Kickstarter may identify and promote the individuals behind a project and their personal information such as Facebook accounts, it would appear that those individuals may be shielded from personally being sued in another state so long as their efforts were a result of official duties and for the profit of the company rather than their own personal profit.
Endnotes
1 The Robinson order can be found here.
Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.