Case 1:12-cv-00311-GMS Document 39 Filed 03/11/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 948

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COMBA TELECOM, INC., Plaintiff,
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

v.
ANDREW, L.L.C. and COMMSCOPE, INC.,

C.A. No. 12-cv-311 (GMS)

Defendants. _______________________________ )

At Wilmington, this

11_ day of March, 2013, having considered Andrew, L.L.C. and

,.4

ORDER

CommScope, Inc.'s (collectively, "the defendants") Motion to Authorize Jurisdictional Discovery (D.I. 26), the parties' submissions in connection with this motion (D.I. 33; D.l. 25), and the relevant law; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendants' Motion to Authorize Jurisdictional Discovery (D.I. 26) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART 1; IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall be prepared to discuss the scope of this limited jurisdictional discovery during the Scheduling Teleconference set for Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. 2

The court finds the scope of the jurisdictional discovery the defendants request-specifically, two depositions, fifteen interrogatories, and twenty-two requests for production-is unnecessarily broad at this stage. See Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340,350-52 (1978) (clarifying that the district court has broad authority to determine discovery issues before it and, further, that discovery is not without limits and must be reasonably calculated). Therefore, the court grants the instant motion with respect to allowing for jurisdictional discovery, but denies the specific jurisdictional discovery the defendants request. 2 The court agrees with the defendants' assertion that factual issues exist regarding the alleged controversy between the parties, specifically with respect to the plaintiffs intent and preparation to launch potentially infringing products in the United States and the basis for its belief that there is a looming patent dispute. See Genetech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that the determination of whether there is an actual controversy in patent actions "generally entails the two part inquiry of: (I) whether the declaratory plaintiff has acted in a way that the patentee asserts infringes the patent, or is preparing to act in such a way; and (2) whether the patentee has created, in the declaratory plaintiff, a reasonable apprehension of suit for infringement"). Therefore, the court concludes that limited jurisdictional discovery will assist it in determining whether the plaintiff has established subject matter

Case 1:12-cv-00311-GMS Document 39 Filed 03/11/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 949

jurisdiction in this case. After conducting jurisdictional discovery, the parties will submit supplemental briefing addressing whether the court may exercise such jurisdiction.
2