Judge Nelson S. Román (S.D.N.Y.) recently granted a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue in a patent case. Wang v. Laview Eagle Eye Tech. Inc., No. 24-cv-01822-NSR, 2025 WL 2371222, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2025).
1. Background
Defendant Laview Eagle Eye Technology Inc. (“Laview”) owns U.S. Patent No. D992,628 (the “’628 Patent”), which claims a design for a light-bulb-shaped security camera. Id. at *2. Laview is based in California. Id. at *1. Although it sells its products on Amazon, Laview has no offices, employees, or assets in New York. Id.
Plaintiff Boyuhao Wang owns U.S. Patent No. D1,005,370 (the “’370 Patent”), which also claims a design for a light-bulb-shaped security camera. Id. Plaintiff Noahcam Security Camera (“Noahcam”), a foreign corporation, is the licensee of the ’370 patent and sells its security cameras on Amazon. Id.
In 2024, Wang and Noahcam (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued Laview and Amazon in the Southern District of New York, alleging that they infringed the ’370 Patent. Id. Plaintiffs also alleged that Laview tortiously interfered with Noahcam’s Amazon contract when it “attempted to enforce the ’628 Patent” by submitting to Amazon a complaint against Noahcam, resulting in Amazon “locking” Noahcam’s e-commerce store. Id. at *1–2. Laview moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Id. at *1.
2. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Under New York’s long-arm statute, a New York court has personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant that:
- (1) “transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state”;
- (2) “commits a tortious act within the state”;
- (3) “commits a tortious act [outside] the state causing injury to person or property within the state . . . if [the defendant] (i) regularly does or solicits business . . . or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered[] in the state, or (ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce”; or
- (4) “owns, uses or possesses any real property situated within the state.”
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a). The court held that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that any of those potential jurisdictional hooks applied to Laview.
Regarding the first hook, Plaintiffs alleged only that Laview sold its product on Amazon to New York consumers. Id. at *6. That allegation was insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction because Plaintiffs “fail[ed] to sufficiently plead facts to support a finding of an articulable nexus between the business transacted and the cause of action sued upon”—that is, the requirement that the plaintiff’s claim “arise from th[e] [in-state] business activity.” Id.
Plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate that Laview “commit[ted] a tortious act” in New York. Plaintiffs’ allegation that Laview tortiously interfered with Noahcam’s Amazon contract was insufficient because Laview was not “physically present” in New York, as required under the second prong of the long-arm statute. Id.
Nor did Plaintiffs demonstrate that they satisfied the third jurisdictional hook, which requires New York to be “the location where the defendant allegedly interfered with the contract” in tortious-interference cases. Id. at *7. The court concluded that Plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege that New York was “where the critical events associated with the dispute took place.” Id.
Although the court did not explicitly address the fourth circumstance that can confer jurisdiction, Laview appears not to have “own[ed], use[d] or possess[ed]” real property in New York.
3. Improper Venue
In addition to finding no personal jurisdiction, Judge Román concluded that venue was improper in New York under the statute requiring that patent cases “be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Laview was not incorporated in New York and Plaintiffs did not demonstrate that Laview had a “regular and established place of business” there. Wang, 2025 WL 2371222, at *8.
