Premier Research Int'l, LLC v. Medpace, Inc.

PREMIER RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MEDPACE, INC., Defendant.

1:19CV1147

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

September 30, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

OSTEEN, JR., District Judge

This matter is before the court on Defendant Medpace, Inc.'s ("Medpace") motion to dismiss Plaintiff Premier Research International, LLC's ("PRI") Amended Complaint for several service mark and unfair competition violations under federal and North Carolina law. (Doc. 14.) Medpace moves to dismiss PRI's Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3). (Id.) For the reasons stated herein, the court finds PRI's Complaint for should be dismissed lack of personal jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Parties

PRI is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Durham, North Carolina. (First Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl.") (Doc. 11) ¶ 2.)¹ PRI is a clinical research and development service provider in the biotech and pharmaceutical industries. (Id. ¶ 3.)

Medpace is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio, with its principal place of business there as well. (Id. ¶ 4.) Medpace has a related entity, Medpace Research, Inc. ("Medpace Research"), which is registered to conduct business in North Carolina. (Id. ¶ 5.) Medpace also offers clinical research and development services to biotech companies. (Id. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff alleges Medpace "offers and provides clinical research and development services to biotech entities, including those in North Carolina, in the development of treatments for diseases across medical practice areas," and "offers, participates in, organizes, and conducts clinical research trial services in North Carolina and actively solicits and transacts related business within North Carolina in conjunction with the offering of its clinical research services to North Carolina-based entities." (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) Plaintiff also alleges Medpace employsseveral employees in North Carolina for the purposes of conducting and providing clinical trials to North Carolina-based companies. (Id. ¶ 8.)

B. Factual Background

This case arises out of Medpace's use of the mark "BUILT FOR BIOTECH" (the "Mark").

Plaintiff alleges that it has used the Mark "continuously" since "as early as November 2017," with its first use priority date of November 30, 2017. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 14-15.) Plaintiff filed an application for a federal registration of the Mark on September 13, 2019, for various business uses. (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff uses the Mark in commerce, such as at trade shows, on social media, in press releases, and during customer presentations. (Id. ¶ 16.)

Medpace, a competitor of Plaintiff's, allegedly was on notice of Plaintiff's use of the Mark because Medpace attended several of the same industry trade shows as Plaintiff in 2018 and mid-2019. (Id. ¶¶ 22-26.) Those trade shows were in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 22-26.) Plaintiff alleges Medpace filed an application for registration of the Mark on June 26, 2019, "just a few weeks after attending the 2019 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago," at which Plaintiff promoted the Mark in connection with its services. (Id. ¶ 27.)In its application, Medpace allegedly claimed ownership of the Mark, and started using the Mark in its online website and advertising starting June 21, 2019. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29.)

C. Procedural Background

Plaintiff PRI filed a First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 11.) Defendant Medpace filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, (Doc. 14), and a supporting memorandum, (Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss First Am. Complaint ("Def.'s Br.") (Doc. 15)). Plaintiff responded, (Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.' Mot. to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Resp.") (Doc. 19)), and Defendant replied, (Doc. 22).

Plaintiff brings the following claims: service mark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Claim One) (Am. Compl. (Doc. 1) ¶¶ 35-44); unfair competition and false designation of origin in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (Claim Two (id. ¶¶ 45-56)); service mark infringement under North Carolina law (Claim Three) (id. ¶¶ 57-66); unfair Competition under North Carolina common law relating to Medpace's use of the Mark (Claim Four) (id. ¶¶ 67-79); and a violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 et seq. relating to Medpace's use of the Mark (Claim Five) (id. ¶¶ 80-87).

II. ANALYSIS

Because personal jurisdiction is dispositive, the court addresses it first.

A. Personal Jurisdiction

1. Personal Jurisdiction Legal Background

On a personal jurisdiction challenge, the plaintiff bears the burden of ultimately proving personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 396 (4th Cir. 2003). But "[o]nce a defendant presents evidence indicating that the requisite minimum contacts do not exist, the plaintiff must come forward with affidavits or other evidence in support of its position." Pathfinder Software, LLC v. Core Cashless, LLC, 127 F. Supp. 3d 531, 538 (M.D.N.C. 2015) (quoting Vision Motor Cars, Inc. v. Valor Motor Co., 981 F. Supp. 2d 464, 468 (M.D.N.C. 2013)). When the court does not hold an evidentiary hearing, the court "must construe all relevant pleading allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, assume credibility, and draw the most favorable inferences for the existence of jurisdiction." New Wellington Fin. Corp. v. Flagship Resort Dev. Corp., 416 F.3d 290, 294 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotationmarks omitted) (quoting Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir. 1989)).

To determine whether personal jurisdiction is proper, the court engages in a two-part inquiry: first, North Carolina's long-arm statute must provide a statutory basis for the assertion of personal jurisdiction, and second, the exercise of personal jurisdiction must comply with due process. Christian Sci. Bd. of Dirs. of the First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Nolan, 259 F.3d 209, 215 (4th Cir. 2001); Vogel v. Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc., 630 F. Supp. 2d 585, 594-95 (M.D.N.C. 2008). Courts have historically construed North Carolina's long-arm statute to be coextensive with the Due Process Clause, thereby collapsing the two requirements "into a single inquiry": whether the non-resident defendant has such "minimum contacts" with the forum state that exercising jurisdiction over it does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Christian Sci., 259 F.3d at 215 (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)).

Due process allows a court to exercise general or specific jurisdiction over a defendant. General jurisdiction exists over a foreign defendant when its "continuous corporate operations within a state [are] so substantial and of such a nature as to justify suit against it on causes of action arising fromdealings entirely distinct from those activities." Int'l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 318; see also Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 n.9 (1984) ("When a State exercises personal jurisdiction over a defendant in a suit not arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum, the State has been said to be exercising 'general jurisdiction' over the defendant."). General jurisdiction requires a foreign defendant's "affiliations with the State [to be] so 'continuous and systematic' as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State." Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011) (citing Int'l Shoe Co., 326 U.S. at 317). "The Supreme Court has recently held that, aside from the 'exceptional case,' general personal jurisdiction over a corporation is usually only appropriate in the corporation's state of incorporation or principal place of business." Pub. Impact, LLC v. Bos. Consulting Grp., Inc., 117 F. Supp. 3d 732, 738 (M.D.N.C. 2015) (citing Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 138-39 n.19 (2014)).

"Specific jurisdiction is very different." Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., 582 U.S. ___, ___, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1780 (2017). It exists when the forum state exercises personal jurisdiction over the defendant "in a suit arising out of or related to the defendant's contacts with the forum[.]"Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia,466 U.S. at 414 n.8. "[T]here must be an 'affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.'" Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 137 S. Ct. at 1780 (quoting Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919). "When there is no such connection, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant's unconnected activities in the State." Id. (citing Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 931 n.6.)

To exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant, due process requires that the court examine "(1) the extent to which the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the State; (2) whether the plaintiff['s] claims arise out of those activities directed at the State; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable." UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Kurbanov, 963 F.3d 344, 351-52 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Consulting Eng'rs Corp. v. Geometric Ltd., 561 F.3d 273, 278 (4th Cir. 2009)).

2. General Jurisdiction

In order to exercise general jurisdiction, Medpace must be incorporated in North Carolina, have its principal place of business in North Carolina, or qualify as an exceptional casewherein its contacts with North Carolina are so "'continuous and systematic' as to render [it] essentially at home in the forum State." Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919.

Plaintiff alleges Medpace is incorporated in Ohio with its principal place of business there as well. (Am. Compl. (Doc. 11) ¶ 4.) Therefore, Medpace is not amenable to general jurisdiction in...