Legal Opinion

Acushnet Co. v. Zimventures, LLC

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided December 23, 2015No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-11524-WGYPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

YOUNG, DISTRICT JUDGE.

I. INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff Acushnet Company (“Acushnet”) brought this suit against ten defendants for patent infringement. Three of these defendants, Nexen Corporation (“Nexen”), Dixon Golf, Inc. (“Dixon”), and Rife Golf (“Rife”) (collectively, the “Moving Defendants”), moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that they lack the minimum contacts with Massachusetts required for this Court to constitutionally assert jurisdiction. This Court concludes that Acushnet has met its burden of making a prima facie showing…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  4. Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
  5. Walden v. FioreSupreme Court of the United States · 2014

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Susan McKnight, Inc. v. United Industries Corp.District Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2017
  2. Grice v. VIM Holdings Group, LLCDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2017
  3. Lelchook v. Islamic Republic of IranDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API