Hewlett-Packard Company v. BYD:SIGN, Inc.
In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Cause Number 6:05-CV-456
Before District Judge Michael Schneider
Decided on September 28, 2006

Relevancy of the Case: Determination of the court’s jurisdiction in a case involving former employees misappropriating trade secrets

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1965
• The Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 1406
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), 12(b)(6), 9(b))

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The plaintiff’s former employees conspired to acquire trade secrets and other sensitive information by abusing their positions of trust and confidence.
• Thereafter, they illegally funnelled those secrets along with HP’s corporate opportunities to a company created by several individual defendants.
• The plaintiff sought an accounting, constructive trust, and monetary damages to compensate for the losses it experienced due to the defendants’ alleged wrongdoing.
• The defendants filed motions challenging personal jurisdiction, venue, and the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s pleading.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The plaintiff’s counsel submitted a consolidated response to the defendants’ pre-answer motions.
• The defendants’ counsels, individually, argued that HP’s evidence was insufficient to establish this court’s jurisdiction over them.

Opinion of the Bench

• The plaintiff’s evidence showing BYD:SYN’s ongoing and systematic interactions with Texas was sufficient for the court to exercise general jurisdiction. The court explained its reasons for exercising general and specific jurisdictions against different defendants.
• The bench denied the motions to transfer the venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 because it determined it could apply relevant laws to the case.

Final Decision

• The court granted Katsumi Electronic Corporation’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. However, for the rest of the defendants, the court rejected their motions for dismissal and transfer of venue.