7/28/2019 Comba 12-311 (DI 39)

1/2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARECOMBA TELECOM, INC., ))

)))))))

Plaintiff,v. C.A. No. 12-cv-311 (GMS)

ANDREW, L.L.C. and COMMSCOPE, INC.,Defendants._______________________________)

ORDER,.4At Wilmington, this 11_ day of March, 2013, having considered Andrew, L.L.C. andCommScope, Inc.'s (collectively, "the defendants") Motion to Authorize Jurisdictional Discovery(D.I. 26), the parties' submissions in connection with this motion (D.I. 33; D.l. 25), and the relevantlaw;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants' Motion to Authorize JurisdictionalDiscovery (D.I. 26) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART1;

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall be prepared to discuss thescope of this limited jurisdictional discovery during the Scheduling Teleconference set forWednesday, March 27, 2013 at 11:00 a.m.2

1 The court finds the scope of the jurisdictional discovery the defendants request-specifically, twodepositions, fifteen interrogatories, and twenty-two requests for production-is unnecessarily broad at this stage. SeeOppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340,350-52 (1978) (clarifying that the district court has broad authorityto determine discovery issues before it and, further, that discovery is not without limits and must be reasonablycalculated). Therefore, the court grants the instant motion with respect to allowing for jurisdictional discovery, butdenies the specific jurisdictional discovery the defendants request.

2 The court agrees with the defendants' assertion that factual issues exist regarding the alleged controversybetween the parties, specifically with respect to the plaintiffs intent and preparation to launch potentially infringingproducts in the United States and the basis for its belief that there is a looming patent dispute. See Genetech, Inc. v.Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that the determination ofwhether there is an actual controversyin patent actions "generally entails the two part inquiry of: (I ) whether the declaratory plaintiff has acted in a way thatthe patentee asserts infringes the patent, or is preparing to act in such a way; and (2) whether the patentee has created,in the declaratory plaintiff, a reasonable apprehension of suit for infringement"). Therefore, the court concludes thatlimited jurisdictional discovery will assist it in determining whether the plaintiff has established subject matter

Case 1:12-cv-00311-GMS Document 39 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 948

7/28/2019 Comba 12-311 (DI 39)

2/2

jurisdiction in this case. After conducting jurisdictional discovery, the parties will submit supplemental briefingaddressing whether the court may exercise such jurisdiction.

2

Case 1:12-cv-00311-GMS Document 39 Filed 03/11/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 949