Xene Corp. v. Nouryon B.V.

Venue Was Improper Pursuant to Forum Clause in Confidentiality Agreement

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Xene Corporation (“Xene” or “Plaintiff”) commenced this action on May 16, 2022 against the Nouryon Defendants¹; Akzo Nobel, Inc (“Akzo Nobel”); Diadem Sports; and Lantor Composites AB.² (Compl., Dkt. 1, 1.) Plaintiff alleged in its Complaint that the Nouryon Defendants and Akzo Nobel induced Diadem Sports, Lantor Composites AB, non party RTP Imagineering Plastics, and similarly situated John Does, to violate 35 U.S.C. §271(g) by importing, offering for sale, selling, or using within the United States products containing “thermoplastic microspheres” or “microcapsules” — with trade name “Expancel” and “Masterbatch” — which, Plaintiff alleged, “is made by a process claimed” by two of Plaintiff’s patents. (Compl., Dkt. 1,

13-15, 95.) On September 12, 2024, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(2) as to Defendant Nouryon B.V., and improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) as to all other Defendants. (See Dkt. 29 (“Dismissal Order”), at 18.) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Dismissal Order with respect to the Court’s finding that venue was improper for the Nouryon Defendants pursuant to a forum-selection clause in a Confidentiality Agreement between the parties. Plaintiff does not seek reconsideration of the Court’s decision to dismiss its claims against either Akzo Nobel or Nouryon B.V. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s reconsideration motion is denied. BACKGROUND I. Relevant Factual Background The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the facts of this case and therefore recites only those facts relevant to this decision.³ Plaintiff Xene Corporation is a New York corporation and owns two patents: U.S. Patent No. 10,500,447 (“’447 Patent”) and No. 8,328,666 (“’666 Patent”) (together, the “Asserted Patents”). (Compl., Dkt. 1,

Xene Corp. v. Nouryon B.V.

Venue Was Improper Pursuant to Forum Clause in Confidentiality Agreement

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal