Immuno Mycologics, Inc. v. Syntex Corp.

Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Immuno Mycologics, Inc. v. Syntex Corp.

Citations: 767 F. Supp. 1112; 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21940; 1991 WL 127161Docket: No. 90-C-435-B

Court: District Court, N.D. Oklahoma; May 31, 1991; Federal District Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The court has ruled to overrule the motion to dismiss filed by Syntex Corporation and Syntex (U.S.A. Inc., asserting insufficient contacts with the Northern District of Oklahoma for in personam jurisdiction. The jurisdictional basis relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), necessitating minimal contacts that align with "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice," as established in case law. The court highlighted that the Oklahoma Long Arm Statute extends jurisdiction to constitutional limits.

Key facts include:
1. Syntex Corporation is a Panamanian parent company, fully owning Syntex (U.S.A. Inc., which in turn owns Syva Company, a Delaware corporation that does not contest jurisdiction.
2. The alleged infringing product is marketed under the AccuLevel® trademark, owned by Syntex (U.S.A. Inc.
3. Key personnel from Syntex Corporation hold director roles at Syva Company.
4. Syntex Medical Diagnostics (SMD), likely a division of Syntex (U.S.A. Inc., was involved in the development and sales of the accused product within the jurisdiction.
5. Dick Rogers, COO of Syntex Corporation, played a significant role in the product's marketing efforts.

The court determined that complex factual and legal issues surrounding Syntex Corporation and Syntex (U.S.A. Inc.’s involvement necessitate a trial to further explore allegations of in personam jurisdiction and the alter ego theory. The motions to dismiss are overruled, and the plaintiff must substantiate its jurisdiction claims at trial.

A pretrial schedule was established, including deadlines for discovery, dispositive motions, and a final pretrial conference, with a jury trial set for October 21, 1991.