Published On: July 31st, 2019Categories: Featured Litigation Cases

In this post, we take a look at the Southern District of New York Court that drops to exercise personal jurisdiction over Xiaomi.

Southern District of New York Court Drops to Exercise Personal Jurisdiction over Xiaomi

Dareltech, LLC (Dareltech) is an American non-practicing entity (NPE) located in the state of Delaware. Inventors, Jinrong Yang and Ramzi Khalil Maalouf, assigned the rights of nine United States patents and one Asian patent to Dareltech in August of 2018. Included in those nine were U.S. patent numbers 9,037,128; 9,055,144; 9,503,627 and 9,571,716.

On September 24, 2018, Dareltech filed a patent infringement suit (1:18-cv-08729) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Chinese Corporation Xiaomi, Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Technology Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Usa, Inc. and Xiaomi Technology, Inc. (Xiaomi). In their Complaint Dareltech accused Xiaomi of manufacturing and selling selfie stick tripod products that infringed the following claims of the patents- in-suit:



US 9,037,128


US 9,055,144

1 & 14

US 9,503,627


US 9,571,716

1 & 11

Earlier, on August 27, 2018, Dareltech notified Xiaomi about the existence of the patents-in-suit, the act of infringement of those patents and advised Xiaomi to acquire licenses for these patents from Dareltech. In a response letter, dated September 12, 2018, Xiaomi refused to comply.

On April 29, 2019, Xiaomi filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue and failure to state a claim under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(6). On May 6, 2019, Dareltech opposed the Motion explaining that Xiaomi sold the accused products through their online website ( and internet retailers, such as Amazon in the United States. Due to these reasons, Dareltech argued that the Court had personal jurisdiction over Xiaomi and therefore the Motion of Dismissal should be denied.

Xiaomi countered that they did not authorize any party to sell their selfie stick products on any third party websites to the customers in the United States. Further, as to the question of how Xiaomi-branded selfie-sticks were available for sale on certain websites to U.S. customers, Xiaomi argued that either those platforms or sellers on those platforms had purchased Xiaomi-branded selfie sticks in China or Xiaomi’s Chinese version website, and later sold them to U.S. customers. Xiaomi also added that as soon as they recognized the unauthorized sales of Xiaomi-branded products by unauthorized resellers, they proactively reached out to Amazon and asked them to stop selling accused products in the United States.

On July 23, 2019, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein entered a Judgment in favor of Xiaomi and dismissed the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction based on the aforementioned points.

Blog Litigation

Have any content requests?

You can let us know at [email protected]

Get the latest IP data, insights and inspiration directly delivered to your inbox