Boa Technology, Inc. v. Macneill Engineering Company, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 26, 20243:23-cv-01431California1,630 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

BACKGROUND

25 BOA filed a complaint against MECI for patent infringement on August 4, 2023. 26 ECF No. 1. The complaint alleged that MECI infringed on BOA’s patents for its reel- 27 and dial-based closure systems―which are used to more easily and precisely tighten the laces or fit of a boot, shoe, or helmet―by making and selling these closure systems, including those used in some Puma and Skechers athletic shoes. Id. On October 12, 2023, MECI filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for lack of venue and personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(2)-(3). ECF No. 18-1 at 4, 8, 10. The parties then proceeded to limited discovery as to venue and personal jurisdiction. ECF No. 21. Following this preliminary discovery, on January 26, 2024, BOA moved for leave to file a first amended complaint, attaching a proposed amended complaint. ECF Nos. 28, 28-2. The allegations in the proposed complaint are substantially the same as in the original complaint, except that BOA seeks to add two Defendants, Pride Manufacturing Company, LLC (“Pride”) and MacNeill Pride Group Corporation (“MPGC”), which it 13 …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.