By Jeff Montgomery

Law360 (August 27, 2020, 6:08 PM EDT) -- Two of three Lysol-brand affiliated companies named in a cleaning wipe packaging infringement suit in Delaware asked a federal judge on Wednesday to unpack them from the case, arguing the complaint never established specific jurisdiction or culpable acts.

Reckitt Benckiser PLC and Reckitt Benckiser Group said in a dismissal motion filed in Delaware federal court that Perimeter Brand Packaging LLC inaccurately lumped the two companies in with parent company Reckitt Benckiser LLC in a complaint that "vaguely and ambiguously" asserts all three directly, indirectly and willfully infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,703,621 and 8,297,461.

Perimeter licensed its patented packaging to Clorox Co. until 2015. Its May suit said the features at issue keep disinfecting wipes moist when canisters are open, and accused the three Reckitt Benckiser companies — which produce consumer goods, including Lysol products — of pilfering the design for Lysol Disinfecting Wipes.

"The complaint fails to provide any factual allegations from which the court could draw even a plausible inference regarding the role played by any defendant in the alleged infringement, and certainly not by RB PLC or RBG — both of which are United Kingdom entities," according to the motion, which questions the Delaware court's jurisdiction in the matter.

Perimeter was obliged to establish in its complaint sufficient contacts to support its choice of the Delaware forum and the court's jurisdiction, according to the motion.

Delaware's long-arm statute confers jurisdiction over non-residents in cases that involve state-related business ties, contractual relationships or allegations of damages or injury, but the two companies said that Perimeter's complaint failed to make strong enough connections to keep them in the suit.

"In the complaint, plaintiff makes one substantive allegation against RB PLC: that plaintiff (which is located in Massachusetts) sent correspondence through its attorney located in Massachusetts to RB PLC located in the United Kingdom" offering a license to the patents.

RB PLC allegedly replied that patents-in-suit were not of interest to RB LLC, or that the claims involved were already known or anticipated by "prior art."

The allegations involved events in Massachusetts, and not Delaware, the dismissal motion said, and argued that the parent-subsidiary relationship between RB LLC and the two companies seeking dismissal is insufficient to give the Delaware court jurisdiction.

"Instead, plaintiffs must present evidence showing that the parent company is responsible for introducing the accused products into the U.S. or Delaware markets," the motion said.

Since 2015, Clorox has avoided using Perimeter's patents, Perimeter argued, adding that years of research and development were required to find a way around license restrictions.

Lysol, in contrast, was accused by Perimeter of copying patent-dependent designs, an assertion said to have been backed up by an independent research firm in 2018.

The Delaware complaint, however, was said to have provided "no allegations that specify any role whatsoever played by RB PLC or RBG with respect to the accused products or the alleged infringement," and no allegations to justify piercing corporate boundaries between the RB parties.

Perimeter did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,703,621 and 8,297,461.

Perimeter is represented by Timothy Devlin of Devlin Law Firm LLC.

Reckitt Benckiser PLC and Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC are represented by Pilar G. Kraman, Robert M. Vrana of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP and Douglas J. Nash, John D. Cook and Naresh K. Kannan of Barclay Damon LLP.

The case is Perimeter Brand Packaging LLC v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC et al., case number 1:20-cv-00623, in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

--Additional reporting by Lauren Berg. Editing by Michael Watanabe.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.