. Plaintiff then argues that a dismissal “would needlessly burden the parties with additional expense and delay and would postpone the adjudication of the controversy on its merits[,]” which goes against the spirit of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1. Id. at 4-5 (citing CytoSport, Inc. v. Cytogenix Sports Laboratories, SBL, 2010 WL 5418883 (E.D. Cal. 2010)). These arguments conflict.

Surreply 1-2. This argument arises from the holding in a 1996 decision from the District of Massachusetts, Pharmachemie B.V. v. Pharmacia S.p.A., 934 F.Supp. 484, 488 (D. Mass. 1996) (finding that § 293's assignment of a federal district court does not preclude Rule 4(k)(2) which refers to “any state's courts of general jurisdiction”); see also CytoSport, Inc. v. Cytogenix Sports Lab'ys, SRL, No. CIV. 2:10-700-WBS, 2010 WL 5418883, at *4 n.2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2010) (same). Plaintiffs additionally argued that § 293 does not affect Rule 4(k)(2) because Rule 4(k)(1)(C) already expressly provides for federal statutes conferring personal jurisdiction.

Thus, a defendant cannot avoid application of the rule by pointing to the federal forum designated by 35 U.S.C. § 293."); Early Learning Res., LLC v. Sebel Furniture Ltd., No. CIV. 10-6335 NLH JS, 2011 WL 4593775, at *6 n.2 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2011) (citing Pharmachemie B.V. v. Pharmacia S.p.A., 934 F.Supp. 484, 488 (D.Mass.1996); CytoSport, Inc. v. Cytogenix Sports Laboratories, SRL, No. 2:10-700, 2010 WL 5418883, at *4 n. 2 (E.D.Cal. Dec.23, 2010)) ("There is some question whether the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a 'state court of general jurisdiction' as contemplated by Rule 4(k)(2)."). But see NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. v. Brevets, No. C 14-1225 SI, 2014 WL 4621017, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2014) (citing Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin & Parr, 574 F.3d 1403 (Fed. Cir. 2009)) (holding, after considering a defendant's argument that Rule 4(k)(2) was inapplicable because 35 U.S.C. § 293 provides for jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Virginia, that "Plaintiff does not dispute that it could have brought its declaratory relief claims regarding the '419 patent against INSIDE Secure in the Eastern District of Virginia. Rule 4(k)(2) is inapplicable where there is 'a suitable forum in which the plaintiff could have brought suit.'").

As Plaintiff notes, some courts have held that designating a federal district court does not satisfy this standard because federal courts are necessarily "court[s] of limited jurisdiction." Pharmachemie v. Pharmacia S.p.A., 934 F. Supp. 484, 488 (D. Mass. 1996); accord Venmill Indus., Inc. v. ELM, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 3d 59, 69 (D. Mass. 2015); CytoSport, Inc. v. Cytogenix Sports Lab., SRL, No. 10-cv-700, 2010 WL 5418883, at *4 n.2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2010) ("The federal court for the District of Columbia is, like all federal courts, a court of limited jurisdiction, so defendant has not managed to avoid the application of Rule 4(k)(2)."). Nevertheless, other courts have held that the Federal Circuit "only required that the defendant name a suitable 'forum' not a specific 'state.'"

There is some question whether the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a "state court of general jurisdiction" as contemplated by Rule 4(k)(2). See Pharmachemie B.V. v. Pharmacia S.p.A., 934 F.Supp. 484, 488 (D.Mass. 1996);CytoSport, Inc. v. Cytogenix Sports Laboratories, SRL, No. 2:10-700, 2010 WL 5418883, at *4 n. 2 (E.D.Cal. Dec. 23, 2010). In Pharmachemie, the defendant argued that Rule 4(k)(2) did not apply because as a foreign patentee owner, it was subject to the jurisdiction of United States District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to Section 293 of the Patent Act.