WILLIAM J. MARTINI, District Judge.
This is a patent infringement case. Plaintiff MSA Products, Inc. alleges that Defendants, including Nifty Home Products, Inc. ("Nifty") and Nifty's President, Frank Tiemann, infringed MSA patents for drawers meant to hold K-Cups. Tiemann moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) to dismiss all claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. In the alternative, Tiemann moves for summary judgment on the personal jurisdiction issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. There was no oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, Tiemann's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is GRANTED.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On December 7, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued United States Design Patent No. D628, 444 ("the 444 Patent") to MSA for an invention entitled "Countertop Coffee Pod Drawer." On December 7, 2010, the United States issued United States Design Patent No. D628, 445, ("the 445 Patent") to MSA for an invention entitled "Countertop Coffee Pod Drawer."
On September 13, 2011, MSA filed a Complaint alleging that Nifty, Tiemann, and others were infringing both the 444 Patent and the 445 Patent. The Complaint asserts personal jurisdiction over Nifty based on sales of allegedly infringing products in New Jersey. The Complaint asserts personal jurisdiction over Tiemann based on Tiemann's alleged alter ego relationship with Nifty. On October 21, 2011, Tiemann moved to dismiss, arguing that he was not Nifty's alter ego and that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The Court denied the motion but authorized Tiemann to revisit the issue following the close of jurisdictional discovery.
Jurisdictional discovery is now complete, and Tiemann again moves to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) on personal jurisdictional grounds. In the alternative, Tiemann moves for summary judgment on the jurisdictional question pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
MSA maintains that the 444 Patent and the 445 Patent were infringed by Tiemann, among others. Tiemann is a Minnesota resident and the founder of Nifty, a company that manufactures and designs kitchen products. Tiemann Declaration ¶¶ 5, 10, ECF No. 87-2. Nifty markets its products with the company name and company trademarks. Id. at Exs. 7 and 8. Nifty files its own tax return, and Nifty's 2010 estimated sales were substantial. Tiemann Declaration ¶¶ 9-10. Nifty employs several people, in addition to Tiemann and another co-owner, Richard Vogelgesang. Id. ¶ 9. Nifty has 49 patents, and Tiemann is the sole named inventor on 48 of them. Gibson Cert. Ex. 4, ECF No. 91-5. Finally, Nifty pays a monthly rent to a company co-owned by Tiemann. Vogelsgang Dep. Tr. 39:10-14, ECF No. 91-3. Based on public records and deposition testimony, MSA argues that Nifty is overpaying its rent by a great deal. Opp. Br. at 9, ECF No. 91.
MSA maintains that Tiemann is in total control of Nifty's business. In support of this argument, MSA appeals primarily to the testimony of Alan Hertaus. Hertaus joined Nifty in 2005 and left the company in 2009 when he was fired by Tiemann. Hertaus Dep. Tr. 9:3-4, 41:17-18, ECF No. 91-2. At his deposition, Hertaus testified that during his time at Nifty, Tiemann would use company funds for personal expenses. Id. at 15:5-21, 16:24-15:7. Hertaus testified that when he joined Nifty, Nifty owed a good deal in credit card debt and that it also owed a substantial sum of money to two individuals. Id. at 19:1-20:7. Hertaus also testified that board meetings at Nifty were vacuous exercises in which no company policy was actually set. Id. at 9:11-20. While Hertaus believes that Tiemann continued to dominate Nifty after Hertaus was fired in 2009, Hertaus has no personal knowledge of what occurred at Nifty following Hertaus's departure. Id. at 44:1-46:22.
Tiemann argues that he did not dominate Nifty. In support of this argument, he Tiemann appeals to the testimony of Richard Vogelsgang, co-owner and current Chief Financial Officer of Nifty. Vogelsgang joined Nifty in 2009. Vogelsgang Dep. Tr. at 24:20-21. Vogelsgang testified that he and Tiemann make decisions in a collaborative manner. Id. at 21:14-19.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) provides for the dismissal of a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2). The burden of establishing personal jurisdiction lies with the plaintiff. Marten v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290, 295-96 (3d Cir. 2007). The plaintiff must show that jurisdiction exists by a preponderance of the evidence. Carteret Sav. Bank, FA v. Shushan, 954 F.2d 141, 146 (3d Cir. 1992).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides for summary judgment "if the pleadings, the discovery [including, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file] and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Turner v. Schering-Plough Corp., 901 F.2d 335, 340 (3d Cir. 1990). A factual dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, and is material if it will affect the outcome of the trial under governing substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, ...