L. Ed. 2d 365, 85 S. Ct. 528 (1965). In the case at bar the issue of jurisdiction is governed by N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1), which provides for personal jurisdiction in New York over any defendant who "transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state." The "contracts anywhere" language was added to the statute in 1979 to abrogate the prior rule that the "mere shipment" of goods into New York could not support jurisdiction. Cleopatra Kohlique, Inc. v. New High Glass, Inc., 652 F. Supp. 1254, 1258 (E.D.N.Y. 1987) (Italian manufacturer's contracting to supply goods in New York "placed this case squarely within § 302(a)(1)").
In its initial motion papers, defendant contends that plaintiff has offered no proof that Swenson has sold or contracted to sell any goods in this district. Defendant argues that Swenson's contacts with Roberts are not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over defendant in this district because Swenson has dealt with Roberts only through Roberts' place of business in Cazenovia, New York, which is in the Northern District of New York, and that what Roberts does with Swenson's products after Roberts purchases them from Swenson is outside Swenson's knowledge and control.
In opposition to defendant's motion, plaintiff has submitted a sworn declaration of Francis F. Krauza, an Assistant Civil Engineer in the Erie County Department of Public Works ("DPW"). Krauza states that he is involved in purchasing various types of equipment by the DPW's Division of Highways, and that on September 1, 1995, the DPW issued a purchase order to buy five Swenson combination dump trucks from Roberts, through Roberts' office in Tonawanda, New York. He states that as of February 14, 1996, the day that he signed the declaration, four of the five trucks had been delivered to Erie County, and that the fifth was to be delivered on February 15. Plaintiff contends that these trucks are among those that allegedly infringe the patent.
In its reply memorandum, defendant contends that this purchase order is not evidence of a sale, but simply an offer to buy from Roberts, a non-party. Defendant also asserts that plaintiff has not presented evidence of a sale prior to the commencement of this action on December 1, 1995.
The fact remains, however, that Krauza affirmatively states that the trucks were purchased from Roberts. The purchase order, which is dated September 1, 1995, also contains the statement, "I hereby certify that the above articles were bought at the prices set out above," signed by two persons listed as "Buyer" and "Director of Purchase." See Krauza Declaration Ex. A (emphasis added). Construing the record in plaintiff's favor, I believe that this evidence is sufficient to meet plaintiff's burden of making a prima facie showing that defendant had contracted to supply goods within this district prior to December 1, 1995.
The fact that defendant initially distributes its goods from Illinois, and that the retail sale within New York is made by Roberts, does not mean that defendant is outside the reach of § 302. For one thing, defendant must still contract with Roberts to supply its goods in New York. Even if Roberts receives the goods at its place of business in the Northern District, Roberts' status as an independent distributor does not necessarily shield defendant from being subjected to personal jurisdiction in this district for sales within this district. An infringing seller may be subject to personal jurisdiction here notwithstanding that it sells its goods through an independent dealer. See Hubbell, Inc. v. Pass & Seymour, Inc., 883 F. Supp. 955, 961 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ("This Court has jurisdiction even if the products for sale are offered through independent brokers in New York"; trademark case); Houbigant, Inc. v. ACB Mercantile, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 964, 1995 WL 608451 *10 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (same); Editorial, 829 F. Supp. at 65 ("Contracting with a distributor to distribute an infringing work in New York renders personal jurisdiction proper under" § 302(a)(1); copyright case); Lipton v. The Nature Co., 781 F. Supp. 1032, 1036 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (same), aff'd, 71 F.3d 464 (1995). Since Roberts has offices in both the Northern and Western Districts of New York, defendant's claim that it has no control over or knowledge of the ultimate destination of products shipped to Roberts appears disingenuous. There is no indication that defendant believed, or had reason to believe, that retail sales would be limited to Roberts' Cazenovia office. See GB Marketing USA, Inc. v. Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co., 782 F. Supp. 763, 767-68 (W.D.N.Y. 1991) (German corporation subject to personal jurisdiction in New York where corporation "understood that its [product] was being sold in New York ...").
Furthermore, a cause of action for patent infringement is deemed to arise where the infringing sales are made. See Imagineering, Inc. v. Van Klassens, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 329, 331 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Depending on the nature of the relationship between Roberts and defendant, then, the alleged sale in Erie County could suffice to establish personal jurisdiction under C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(2), which allows a court to "exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary ... who in person or through an agent : ... commits a tortious act within the state ..." See Imagineering, 797 F. Supp. at 331-32 (exercising jurisdiction under § 302(a)(2) over furniture manufacturer based on alleged sale of two infringing rocking chairs in New York). Although it is not clear at this point whether Roberts is defendant's agent, at this stage any doubts on that score are to be resolved in favor of plaintiff. Hubbell, 883 F. Supp. at 961; Editorial Musical, 829 F. Supp. at 64.
At the very least, then, it is clear that defendant has contracted with Roberts to supply goods within New York State. Construing the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it also appears that there could be a set of facts which would support personal jurisdiction, and therefore venue, within this district. Since that is so, the motion to dismiss must be denied.
At this time, however, some of the relevant facts are not yet known. In particular, the precise manner and dates of the sale and delivery of the trucks to Erie County are not apparent from this record. It is not clear, for instance, whether defendant shipped the trucks directly to Roberts' Tonawanda office, or, if not, whether defendant nevertheless knew of the trucks' ultimate destination.
I believe, therefore, that the best course here is to deny defendant's motion without prejudice, and to permit discovery to proceed for 60 days solely on matters relating to personal jurisdiction. At the end of that period, defendant may renew its motion to dismiss, if appropriate. See Gomez v. ISB LTEE Ltd., 920 F. Supp. 275 (D.Conn. 1995).
II. Motion to Change Venue
In the event that the court denies its motion to dismiss, defendant asks that the case be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Section 1404(a) of Title 28 provides that
for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.