Pre-Litigation Correspondence Does Not Secure Personal Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs considering bringing suit in the District of Connecticut take heed: "Plaintiffs cannot vest a Connecticut court with personal jurisdiction over a person simply by hurling an accusation of patent infringement across the country at that person and then receiving responses in Connecticut," according to a recent order from Judge Shea.  To provide some background, Protegrity sued TokenEx in the District of Connecticut, accusing TokenEx of infringing two patents related to data security.  TokenEx, an LLC in Oklahoma, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

Judge Shea allowed limited discovery on personal jurisdiction.  The Court initially denied TokenEx's motion because the parties addressed the wrong statute–Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-929 (Connecticut's corporation-specific long-arm statute).  TokenEx subsequently renewed its motion to dismiss, and the parties briefed the issue under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-59b (Connecticut's general long-arm statute),