Full opinion text
OPINION and ORDER MELLOY, District Judge. This action involves allegations of illegal dumping brought pursuant to the Anti-dumping Act of 1916, 15 U.S.C. § 72 (“the 1916 Act”). Presently pending before this Court are the Defendants’ motions to dismiss Goss Graphic Systems, Inc.’s (“Goss”) complaint (Docs. 59 and 68 and 146) filed on August 29 and 31, 2000, and March 5, 2001, respectively. The motions have been briefed by both parties and oral argument was heard by this Court on October 13, 2000. For the reasons stated herein, the Defendants’ motions to dismiss are denied. I. INTRODUCTION Goss brings the present action pursuant to the 1916 Antidumping Act alleging that the Defendants, foreign manufacturers of offset web printing presses for large newspapers and their import companies, have been illegally dumping their foreign-made products in the United States at prices far below the prices of such products in their country of origin with the intent of injuring or destroying the United States Newspaper Press industry. The Defendants MAN Roland Druckmaschinen Aktienge-sellschaft, MAN Roland, Inc., Koenig & Bauer Aktiengesellschaft, KBA North American, Inc., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd., and MLP U.S.A. Inc. move to dismiss Goss’ complaint on four separate grounds: (1) Goss failed to allege the Defendants acted with predatory intent and therefore fails to state a claim under the 1916 Act; (2) Goss did not and cannot state a claim that the Defendants sold large newspaper printing presses within the United States at prices “substantially less than the actual market value or wholesale price of such articles in the principal markets of the country of their production or other foreign countries to which they are commonly exported”; (3) Goss’ complaint does not and cannot allege that Koe-nig & Bauer Aktiengesellschaft, imported or assisted in importing newspaper printing presses and thus fails to state a claim against Koenig & Bauer Aktiengesells-chaft, under the 1916 Act; and (4) this Court lack personal jurisdiction over Koe-nig & Bauer Aktiengesellschaft, and KBA North America, Inc. in this forum, and there is also improper venue as to these Defendants. Concomitantly, Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd., and TKS Inc. move to dismiss Goss’ complaint alleging the actions underpinning Goss’ complaint fall outside the requisite statute of limitations and, like their co-defendants’ motion, Goss does not and cannot state a claim that the Defendants sold large newspaper printing presses within the United States at prices “substantially less than the actual market value or wholesale price of such articles in the principal markets of the country of their production or other foreign countries to which they are commonly exported” as required by the 1916 Act. II. FACTS ALLEGED IN GOSS’ COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Goss Graphic Systems, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Westmont, Illinois. Goss manufactures and supplies Newspapers Presses, Newspaper Press additions and other printing press systems for newspaper, advertising, and commercial printing and publishing markets. Goss’ manufacturing facilities in the United States are located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Defendant MAN Roland Druckmaschinen Aktiengesellschaft (“MAN Germany”) is a German corporation with its principal place of business in Offenbach, Germany. MAN Germany is a wholly owned subsidiary of MAN Aktiengesellschaft. MAN Germany manufactures Newspaper Presses and Newspaper Press additions in Germany. It distributes these products in Germany, the United States, and other countries through its affiliates and subsidiaries, including MAN Roland, Inc. Defendant MAN Roland, Inc. (“MAN USA”) is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Westmont, Illinois. MAN USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of MAN Capital Corporation, which in turn, is a wholly owned subsidiary of MAN Aktiengesellschaft. MAN USA imports, markets, and sells in the United States Newspaper Presses and Newspaper Press additions that are manufactured by MAN Germany. Defendant Koenig & Bauer Aktienge-sellschaft (“KBA Germany”) is a German corporation with its principal place of business in Wuerzburg, Germany. KBA Germany manufactures Newspaper Presses and Newspaper Press additions in Germany. It distributes these products in Germany, .the United States, and other countries through its subsidiaries, including KBA North American, Inc. Defendant KBA North American, Inc. (“KBA NA”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in York, Pennsylvania. KBA NA is a wholly owned subsidiary of KBA Germany. KBA NA imports, markets, and sells in the United States Newspaper Presses and Newspaper Press additions that are manufactured by KBA Germany. Defendant Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. (“TKS Japan”) is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. TKS Japan manufactures Newspaper Presses and Newspaper Press additions in Japan. It distributes these products in Japan, the United States, and other countries through its subsidiaries, including TKS Inc. Defendant TKS Inc. (“TKS USA”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Richardson, Texas. TKS USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of TKS Japan. TKS USA imports, markets, and sells in the United States Newspaper Presses and Newspaper Press additions that are manufactured by TKS Japan. Defendant Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (“Mitsubishi”) is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Mitsubishi manufactures Newspaper Presses and Newspaper Press additions in Japan. It distributes these products in Japan, the United States, and other countries through its subsidiaries, including MLP U.S.A., Inc. Defendant MLP U.S.A., Inc. (“MLP USA”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Lincolnshire, Illinois. MLP USA is owned by Mitsubishi and Mitsubishi Corporation. MLP USA imports, markets, sells, and services Newspaper Presses in the United States that are made by Mitsubishi. In its complaint Goss alleges that “[flor years, the Defendants have offered and sold Newspaper Presses and Newspaper Press additions in the United States at prices substantially less than their actual market value in other countries, after adding freight, tariffs, and other charges and expenses. The Defendants have undertaken this conduct — called ‘dumping’ — in a deliberate effort to destroy or injure the United States Newspaper Press Industry.” In support of these allegations Goss points to the United States Government’s investigation into the Defendants’ alleged dumping, the Government’s ultimate conclusion that the Defendants did engage in dumping in violation of the 1930 Tariff Act and finally the Government’s imposition of tariffs on the Defendants. Goss further alleges that despite the Government’s findings and imposed tariffs, the Defendants continued to illegally dump their foreign made products in the United States. Goss contends “[t]he Defendants’ conduct has had the intended effect of substantially suppressing Newspaper Press prices in the United States below Newspaper Press prices in foreign markets, and thus, injuring the United States Newspaper Press industry.” These actions, Goss maintains, amount to violations of the Antidumping Act of 1916, 15 U.S.C. § 72. Goss avers they have been injured and continue to be injured by the Defendants’ violations and Goss seeks threefold damages, costs of the suit and reasonable attorney’s fees. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires the court to review only the pleadings to determine whether they state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In considering a motion to dismiss, the court must assume that all facts alleged in a plaintiffs complaint are true, and must liberally construe those alleged facts. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 118, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); see also Doe v. Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A., 107 F.3d 1297, 1303-04 (8th Cir.1997); Fusco v. Xerox Corp., 676 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir.1982) (finding complaint must be construed liberally, taking all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff). This Court is cognizant that a motion to dismiss a complaint should not be granted unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would entitle the plaintiff to relief. See Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99; Morton v. Becker, 793 F.2d 185, 187 (8th Cir.1986). Indeed, the issue is not whether a plaintiff will prevail, but whether a plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence to support its claims. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), overruled on other grounds by, Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984); United States v. Aceto Agric. Chem. Corp., 872 F.2d 1373, 1376 (8th Cir.1989). Hence, “[a] motion to dismiss should be granted as a practical matter only in the unusual case in which a plaintiff includes allegations that show on the face of the complaint that there is some insuperable bar to relief.” Frey v. City of Herculaneum, 44 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir.1995) (internal quotations omitted). IV. DISCUSSION A. Did Goss allege the Defendants acted with the requisite intent to state a claim under the 1916 Antidumping Act? 1. Statutory Analysis The 1916 Antidumping Act prohibits discriminatory pricing if such pricing is done with “the intent of destroying or injuring an industry in the United States, or of preventing the establishment of an industry in the United States, or of restraining or monopolizing any part of trade and commerce in such articles in the United States.” 15 U.S.C. § 72. The Defendants’ primary challenge to Goss’ complaint is premised on the notion that the aforementioned intent element requires a showing of predatory intent. Predatory intent, as urged by the Defendants, was defined by the Supreme Court in Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 113 S.Ct. 2578, 125 L.Ed.2d 168 (1993), in the context of domestic antitrust laws. There, the Supreme Court explained that a plaintiff alleging price discrimination under the domestic antitrust laws must show that the alleged below-cost pricing was intended to drive out competitors, and the defendants’ actions would create subsequent market conditions in which they could raise the price and recoup any loss they may have incurred through the below-cost pricing. See id. at 221-22, 113 S.Ct. 2578. Because Goss has in fact not alleged predatory intent, as prescribed by the Supreme Court in Brooke Group, the Defendants maintain Goss’ complaint fails as a matter of law. The question for this Court then is whether the Defendants are correct that the 1916 Antidumping-Act indeed requires such a showing. Long-established canons of statutory construction require this Court to look first to the explicit language of the statute. See Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 59-61, 118 S.Ct. 469, 139 L.Ed.2d 352 (1997) (stating “[cjourts in applying criminal laws generally must follow the plain and unambiguous meaning of the statutory language”); Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108, 100 S.Ct. 2051, 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980) (stating “the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself’); see also United States v. Smith, 171 F.3d 617, 620 (8th Cir.1999) (stating “[i]n construing a statute, we look first to the plain meaning of the words of the statute”). If the statute is clear .and unambiguous on its face, the judicial inquiry is complete. See Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 254, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) (stating “[wjhen the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon [of statutory construction] is also the last: ‘judicial inquiry is complete.’ ’’(internal quotations omitted)); see also In re Erickson Partnership, 856 F.2d 1068, 1070 (8th Cir.1988) (same). The 1916 Antidumping Act provides in pertinent part: It shall be unlawful for any person importing or assisting in importing any articles from any foreign country into the United States, commonly and systematically to import, sell or cause to be imported or sold such articles within the United States at a price substantially less than the actual market value or wholesale price of such articles, at the time of exportation to the United States, in the principal markets or the country of their production, or of other foreign countries to which they are commonly exported after adding to such market value or wholesale price, freight, duty, and other charges and expenses necessarily incident to the importation and sale thereof in the United States: Provided, That such act or acts be done with the intent of destroying or injuring an industry in the United States, or of preventing the establishment of an industry in the United States, or of restraining or monopolizing any part of the trade and commerce in such articles in the United States. 15 U.S.C. § 72. The Act therefore, through no uncertain terms, prohibits the systematic importing of articles into the United States at a price substantially less than the actual market value or wholesale price of such articles in the principal markets or the country of their production, done with one or more of the following intentions: 1) to destroy a United States industry; 2) to injure a United States industry; 3) to prevent the establishment of a United States industry; 4) to restrain trade and commerce in the subject market; or 5) the intent to monopolize trade and commerce in the subject market. Thus, as this Court reads the 1916 Act, the language clearly and unambiguously prescribes five ways in which one might prove a defendant’s intent to discriminate regarding price and Goss has pled two of those ways — (1) intent to destroy an industry in the United States and (2) intent to injure an industry in the United States. Defendants’ contention that a plaintiff must show predatory intent as defined by Brooke Group is simply not supported by the plain and unambiguous language of the 1916 Act. Although the 1916 Act has rarely been employed, whether it requires a showing of predatory intent is not an entirely new topic for the courts. Indeed, five U.S. District Courts have had occasion to address the Act’s intent requirements, with varying degrees of specificity. See Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Mitsui Co., 35 F.Supp.2d 597, 600 (S.D.Ohio 1999); Geneva Steel Co. v. Ranger Steel Supply Corp., 980 F.Supp. 1209, 1216 (D.Utah 1997); Helmac Prods. Corp. v. Roth Corp., 814 F.Supp. 560, 576 (E.D.Mich.1992); In re Japanese Electronic Products, 494 F.Supp. 1190, 1201 (E.D.Pa.1980); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd., 402 F.Supp. 251, 259 -260 (E.D.Pa.1975). In support of its interpretation the Defendants direct this Court’s attention to the first two courts to touch on the 1916 Act’s intent element, Zenith Radio Corp., 402 F.Supp. 251, and In re Japanese Electronic Products, 494 F.Supp. 1190, both part of a ten-year antitrust and antidumping litigation generating over fifteen opinions. In the first of these two cases, the issue of predatory intent was not squarely before the court, but rather at issue was whether the 1916 Act was void for vagueness. See 402 F.Supp. at 254. In Zenith Radio, Judge Higginbotham upheld the validity of the 1916 Act against the constitutional challenge finding the terms were clear with ascertainable meaning. See id. at 255-58. The Defendants note that in reaching this conclusion, Judge Higginbotham observed: “As I read the Act, it forbids regular, continued price discrimination between purchasers in different national markets whenever the discrimination is motivated by a desire to destroy competition,” Zenith Radio Corp., 402 F.Supp. at 259, and went on to add “Section 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act, ... is virtually the same as the predatory intent requirement of 15 U.S.C. Section 72.” Id. at 260. The Defendants place great weight on Judge Higginbotham’s use of the phrase “predatory intent.” But as the Court has already noted, the 1916 Act’s required intent was not before the court in Zenith Radio. See 402 F.Supp. at 259. Rather that court cited the intent language as further evidence of the statute’s sufficient specificity and used the phrase “predatory intent” in dicta. See 402 F.Supp. at 259. More importantly, however, this opinion came some 18 years prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brooke Group. Thus, the notion that this Court should superimpose Brooke Group’s heightened predatory intent requirement on the 1916 Act based on an earlier court’s use of the phrase “predatory intent” in dicta is simply without merit. The second of the two cases heavily relied upon by the Defendants also was not charged with discerning the intent element of the 1916 Act. See In re Japanese Electronic Products, 494 F.Supp. at 1197. Instead, “[t]he precise question before [that court was] whether TV sets and other consumer electronic products manufactured for sale and use in the United States, as a class, and consumer electronic products manufactured for sale and use in Japan, as a class, are sufficiently similar to be comparable for purposes of the 1916 Act.” 494 F.Supp. at 1196. Judge Becker held that “to give rise to a violation of the 1916 Act, the products sold in the United States and the products sold in the foreign country must be of ‘like grade and quality’ as that phrase is used in § 2 of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13.” In re Japanese Electronic Products, 494 F.Supp. at 1197. Judge Becker surmised from his analysis of the statutory text “that the 1916 Act is an antitrust, not a protectionist statute,” id. at 1215, and concluded later, after an exhaustive review of the legislative history, that “[t]he principal lesson which we draw from the legislative history of the 1916 Act, viewed against the historical background ... is that the statute should be interpreted whenever possible to parallel the ‘unfair competition’ law applicable to domestic commerce. Since the 1916 Antidumping Act is a price discrimination law, it should be read in tandem with the domestic price discrimination law...” Id. at 1223. The Defendants urge Judge Becker’s interpretation in the present case, yet it is not entirely clear that his ruling is advantageous to them. As an initial matter, Judge Becker notes that the 1916 Act should be construed like domestic antitrust laws “whenever possible.” Id. at 1223. Moreover, Judge Becker also stated, referring specifically to the intent requirement of the Act, that “[t]he 1916 Antidumping Act, unlike e. g. section 2 of the Sherman Act, does not require plaintiffs to show that any defendant’s predatory intent was accompanied by a dangerous probability of success,” 494 F.Supp. at 1201 n. 12, which is precisely the standard the Defendants advance in the present case. And again, Judge Becker was not charged with deciphering the Act’s requisite showing of intent and his opinion came out some thirteen years prior to Brooke Group. For these reasons, this Court is not inclined to diverge from the plain language of the 1916 Act, and adopt a heightened predatory intent requirement based on an earlier court’s ruling that the 1916 Act has no protectionist underpinnings. Defendants’ attempt “to circumscribe the statutory text by pointing to its legislative history” and argue that it is essentially an antitrust statute is unpersuasive. Salinas, 118 S.Ct. at 474; see also In re Erickson Partnership, 856 F.2d at 1070 (holding “[t]he mere fact that statutory provisions conflict with language in the legislative history is not an exceptional circumstance permitting a court to apply the legislative history rather than the statute”). This Court declines the Defendants’ invitation to parse through sparse legislative history to discern what is readily discernable from the language of the 1916 Act itself. Apart from the cases relied upon by the Defendants,, three other U.S.- District courts had occasion to analyze this statute and, significantly, did so with the benefit of the holding in Brooke Group. See Wheeling-Pittsburgh, 35 F.Supp.2d at 601-05; Geneva Steel, 980 F.Supp. at 1216; and Helmac Prods., 814 F.Supp. at 576. While recognizing the Act had antitrust concerns, these courts found the Act had protectionist concerns which distinguished it from cases prosecuted pursuant to domestic antitrust laws. See Wheeling-Pittsburgh, 35 F.Supp.2d at 601-05 (distinguishing language of domestic antitrust laws from that of 1916 Act); Geneva Steel, 980 F.Supp. at 1216 (explaining “the 1916 Act has a protectionist reach beyond antitrust and traditional predatory price-discrimination pleading requirements”); and Helmac Prods., 814 F.Supp. at 576 (recognizing distinction between the 1916 Act and antitrust laws in that antitrust laws focus on the alleged violations’ effect on competition as opposed to the competitor). Two of these courts, like this one, were faced squarely with the question of whether the 1916 Act required a showing of predatory intent, and each concluded the 1916 Act was unambiguous on its face and did not require the plaintiff to make such a showing. See Wheeling-Pittsburgh, 35 F.Supp.2d at 600; and Geneva Steel, 980 F.Supp. at 1216. In Geneva Steel the court held that the Antidumping Act of 1916 did not require the type of predatory intent defined in Brooke Group because, in part, the statute “has a protectionist reach beyond antitrust and traditional predatory price-discrimination pleading requirements.” Geneva Steel, 980 F.Supp. at 1217. Likewise, in Wheeling-Pittsburgh, the court held that “[w]hile the Sherman, Clayton, and Robinson-Patman Acts expressly protect competition, the language of the Anti-dumping Act of 1916 seeks to prevent 'injury to industry’ from cut-throat pricing by international manufacturers” and plaintiffs’ failure to allege predatory pricing by which the defendants could reasonably gain market dominance and subsequently raise prices to recoup losses incurred by selling at a cut-throat price is of no consequence. See 35 F.Supp.2d at 605. In this Court’s view, the conclusion reached by both Wheeling-Pittsburgh and Geneva Steel is correct. As succinctly stated by the Geneva Steel court: the language of the Act itself, in addition to prohibiting antitrust violations, clearly and literally prohibits non-antitrust and non-predatory pricing conduct. By the words it chose, Congress protected United States industries from unfair dumping, whether the dumper possessed predatory intent or not. The intent required is the intent to “injure” a domestic United States industry. When the Act states that it is unlawful to sell dumped goods with the specific intent to injure a United States industry, it means precisely that. The Defendants want to add the limitation that such injury can only occur if predatory pricing is involved, but the Act simply does not say so. 980 F.Supp. at 1217. 2. Appropriate Weight to be Accorded to the USTR’s Position on Intent The Court is cognizant that this case has one aspect which sets it apart from its predecessors, and that is the recently stated position of the Executive. In recent dispute settlement proceedings concerning the consistency of the 1916 Antidumping Act with the United States’ obligations under the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Agreements, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) explained that the intent requirement of the 1916 Act should be interpreted in the same manner as the predatory intent requirement of domestic price discrimination claims under the Robinson-Patman Act and predatory-pricing claims under the Sherman Act. Specifically, the USTR stated that “[t]he 1916 Act requires a finding that the pricing at issue be undertaken with a predatory intent ... similar to that found in Section 2 of the Sherman Act and in so-called primary line cases under the Robinson-Patman Act.” First U.S. Submission in Japan Proceeding ¶ 14(b); accord First U.S. Submission in EC Proceeding ¶¶ 24(b), 106 (“evidence of the requisite intent under the 1916 Act is essentially the same predatory intent contemplated by the Robinson-Patman Act”). The Defendants urge this Court to accord substantial deference to the USTR representations to the WTO because of the well established proposition that deference should be allotted to the Executive Branch in areas of foreign affairs. This Court is aware the Executive Branch is awarded great latitude on resolving issues regarding foreign affairs. See First Nat’l City Bank v. Banco Nacional de Cuba, 406 U.S. 759, 767, 92 S.Ct. 1808, 32 L.Ed.2d 466 (1972) (plurality opinion) (noting the “primacy of the Executive in the conduct of foreign relations” and the Executive Branch’s lead role in foreign policy). As evinced by the cases relied upon by the Defendants, courts have historically granted substantial deference to the Executive in the area of foreign affairs, in two areas in particular. One area, and the most common, is when a Executive agency is charged by Congress with the interpretation and the administration of a statute. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984) (noting the Court has “long recognized that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer, and the principle of deference to administrative interpretations”); Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1349 (11th Cir.) (holding INS has authority to dictate asylum application procedure when statute is silent on the issue where INS has delegated the agency to interpret the statute by Congress), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1270, 120 S.Ct. 2737, 147 L.Ed.2d 1001 (2000); Federal-Mogul Corp. v. United States, 63 F.3d 1572, 1580 (Fed.Cir.1995) (giving deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute, the court explained “[t]he question of whether, and to what extent, the Agency’s approach to this problem is entitled to deference is not lightly decided. For one, Chevron deference is a limited relinquishment of judicial power to declare what the law is. It is available when Congress leaves to an agency the choice of a course to follow in pursuit of a Congressional purpose, embodied in a statute, and the agency has issued regulations or taken other considered and official action, declaring that course. If the course the agency has chosen is reasonable, that is, a permissible one under the law, courts do not exercise their usual power to declare what the law is. The agency is entitled in such circumstances to make that decision. That is what Chevron teaches.”); Taiwan v. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Cal., 128 F.3d 712, 718-19 (9th Cir.1997) (concerning diplomatic immunity for an employee of TECRO, court gave “substantial deference” to State Department’s interpretation of an act where Congress had granted President authority to extend diplomatic protections to TECRO employees); United States v. Fernandez-Pertierra, 523 F.Supp. 1135, 1141 (S.D.Fla.1981) (holding President acted within his authority when issuing regulations pursuant to the Trading With Enemy Act (“TWEA”)); Tax Analysts and Advocates v. Simon, 390 F.Supp. 927, 942 (D.D.C.1975) (allotting deference to IRS revenue rulings pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code). Another area in which courts cede their judicial authority to the Executive is in cases where the issue to be resolved is considered a political question; that is, although a federal court has jurisdiction over a dispute, it “should decline to adjudicate it on the ground that the ease raises questions which should be addressed by the political branches of government.” Iwanowa v. Ford Motor Co., 67 F.Supp.2d 424, 483 (D.N.J.1999). Again turning to the cases relied upon by the Defendants, this doctrine is not one of deference but rather an instance where a court concludes an issue is not “justiciable in federal court because of the separation of powers provided by the Constitution.” Id. (citing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 516-17, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969)). Because of the significance of ceding judicial authority to the Executive under the political question doctrine, the Supreme Court has carefully delineated factors to consider when it is appropriate. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962) (finding courts should consider: (1) a demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or (2) the lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or (3) the impossibility of making a decision without first making a policy determination of the type clearly outside judicial discretion; or (4) the court’s inability to resolve the issue without expressing lack of respect to the coordinate branches of government; or (5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or (6) the potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question); see also Iwanowa, 67 F.Supp.2d at 483. Although the previous cases are those cited by the Defendants, they concede that the present scenario does not fall into either category — administrative agency or political question. See Defendants’ Reply Brief, p. 6. Instead the Defendants cite these cases for a more general proposition that where a statute’s language is ambiguous, a court should grant substantial deference to the Executive’s interpretation of statutes when its interpretation affects the conduct of foreign affairs. See id. This Court is not convinced that representations made by the USTR in an adversary proceeding before a foreign body made in an effort to salvage legislation under particular scrutiny warrant the kind of judicial deference discussed in the cases cited by the Defendant. Nor does this Court find the language of the statute to be ambiguous, as explained earlier. That said, the Court is cognizant of the import of the Executive’s position on issues of foreign affairs and deems it prudent to take it into consideration. This does not however, change the Court’s ultimate conclusion that the statute does not warrant a predatory intent showing. The Executive’s position is contrary to the conclusion of the plain language of the Act and the conclusion of three independent United States District Courts. What’s more, the body before which the USTR made its representations did not adopt the Executive’s interpretation of the Act. See WTO DSB Report, at 95; aff'd Report of the Appellate Body, ¶ 155(c). For these reasons, and those stated earlier, this Court declines to adopt the Executive’s position that the Act requires a showing of predatory intent. While “[rjespect for the authority of the executive branch in foreign affairs is a well-established theme in our law....,” it “does not mean [however] that the executive branch has unbridled discretion in creating and in implementing policy.” Gonzalez, 212 F.3d at 1349. Goss’ complaint sufficiently alleges the requisite intent in order to state a cause of action under the 1916 Act. B. Has Goss adequately alleged that the Defendants sold large newspaper printing presses within the United States at prices “substantially less than the actual market value or wholesale price of such articles in the principal markets of the country of their production or other foreign countries to which they are commonly expcnied”? To prevail under the 1916 Antidump-ing Act a plaintiff must establish that the defendant sold articles within the United States at prices “substantially less than the actual market value or wholesale price of such articles ... in the principal markets of the country of their production, or of other foreign countries to which they are commonly exported.” 15 U.S.C. § 72. The Defendants maintain that in order for Goss’ complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, it must compare the prices for comparable products. The Defendants argue Goss’ complaint contains no such allegations. Instead, the Defendants aver Goss relies entirely on the findings of the Department of Commerce (“DOC”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) which are insufficient to state a claim as a matter of law because neither the DOC nor the ITC based their findings on a price to price comparison. Moreover, the Defendants argue Goss represented to the DOC that price to price comparisons were not possible and is now judicially estopped from arguing otherwise. In response, Goss maintains its allegations are not simply based on the DOC and ITC findings and that it has in fact alleged that the Defendants have been selling and/or importing for sale their presses in the United States at prices “substantially less than the actual market value or wholesale price” of such products in the Defendants’ home markets or other markets to which they are commonly exported. Goss maintains it is not judicially estopped from making price to price comparisons and concludes that irrespective of whether it is judicially estopped, the 1916 Act does not require that a plaintiff make a price to price comparison in order to prevail. In view of the foregoing challenges, the Court will begin its inquiry with whether Goss adequately alleged a price to price comparison, and whether it is judicially estopped from doing so. Assuming Goss can and did allege a price to price comparison, whether it must do so in order to state a claim under the 1916 Act is not central to the resolution of the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In its complaint, Goss begins by describing the nature of the claim — the Defendants “have been illegally dumping their foreign-made products in the United States at prices far below prices of such products in their countries of origin.” Complaint ¶ 1. Goss then goes into further detail providing background facts describing the printing presses, press components and additions at issue as well as the bidding process. See Complaint ¶¶ 14-15, 21-23. Goss alleges facts to establish each of the Defendants’ presses are foreign made. See Complaint ¶¶ 3-10, 18. Goss uses the facts to underpin its allegation that “[f]or years the Defendants have offered and sold Newspaper Presses and Newspaper Press additions in the United States at prices substantially less than their actual market value in other countries, after adding freight, tariffs, and other charges and expenses.” Complaint ¶ 24. While Goss also includes the findings of the DOC and the ITC that newspaper printing presses and components imported from Germany and Japan respectively were being sold in or were likely being sold in the United States at less than their fair value and this was in violation of the Tariff Act of 1930, see Complaint ¶¶ 28 & 29, it does not stop there; rather Goss goes on to allege that “[d]e-spite the findings of the ITC and the DOC, and even though the Defendants must pay tariffs on their sales of large newspaper printing presses, the Defendants continue to illegally dump their foreign-made products in the United States.” Complaint, ¶ 33. Goss concludes by describing the harm Goss has allegedly suffered “[a]s a result of the Defendants’ domestic pricing below their foreign market prices.” Complaint, ¶ 35. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to plead only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief....” See Conley, 355 U.S. at 47, 78 S.Ct. 99. “The essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to give the opposing party ‘fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.’ ” Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir.1999) (quoting Redland Ins. Co. v. Shelter Gen. Ins. Cos., 121 F.3d 443, 446 (8th Cir.1997)). The Court is cognizant that “ ‘a complaint must contain facts sufficient to state a claim as a matter of law and must not be merely conclusory in its allegations.’ ” Hanten v. School Dist. of Riverview Gar dens, 183 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir.1999) (quoting Springdale Education Association v. Springdale School District, 133 F.3d 649, 651 (8th Cir.1998)). After a thorough review of the pleadings this Court believes Goss has sufficiently alleged facts which would support a price to price comparison, and has adequately provided the Defendants with “fair notice of the nature and ... grounds for a claim.” The question then becomes whether Goss is judicially estopped from making such a comparison because of earlier assertions made to the DOC. It appears from this Court’s view of the record that Defendants’ contention that Goss represented to the DOC that a price to price comparison is wholly impossible is inaccurate. While Goss did originally state that a price to price comparison would likely be impossible to make, it went on to clarify that position throughout the proceedings, urging the DOC in certain instances to carry out such a comparison. In Goss’ initial petition to the DOC it maintained: Based on Petitioner’s extensive knowledge of U.S. and Japanese large newspaper printing presses, Petitioner believes that large newspaper printing presses sold in Japan differ substantially from the merchandise sold in the United States. Japanese newspapers typically have fewer pages than U.S. newspapers, so large newspaper printing presses sold in Japan have fewer units, fewer RTPs and smaller folders. In contrast, U.S. newspapers generally contain a large number of pages, requiring more printing units, RTPs and larger folders. Moreover, each large newspaper printing press is unique, requiring custom engineering to adapt the equipment to a customer’s printing facility and to meet specialized performance characteristics. Such great diversity would preclude product matching even in a large market. In a small market, like the one for large newspaper printing presses, it makes matching impossible. With relatively few sales, it is, to the best of Petitioner’ knowledge impossible to find two large newspaper presses sold in the United States and Japan that are sold at roughly the same time, are physically comparable, and differ in cost by less than 20 percent. See June SO, 1995 Petition for Imposition of Antidumping Duties, Vol. Ill, Information relating to Japan. Notably Goss made these assertions without the benefit of discovery from the Defendants because it is not permitted during DOC proceedings. See Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1189 (Fed.Cir.1990) (opposing parties are not entitled to conduct their own discovery during a DOC investigation). Instead, the parties are obliged to voluntarily respond to questionnaires. See id. Then, after reviewing the Defendants information provided to the DOC, presumably through voluntary questionnaires, Goss modified its original position concerning the possibility of conducting price to price comparison. Indeed, Goss argued on numerous instances that the DOC should conduct a price to price comparison. In a letter dated October 2,1995, Goss asserted: [Preliminary information submitted by the Respondent suggests that there may be home market matches to U.S. sales.... Moreover, the price for the U.S. sale [deleted] suggest that it could be comparable to Japanese presses sold in the same fiscal year. Oct. 2, 1995 Letter from C. Verrill to R'. Brown, pp. 3-4. Likewise, Goss represented to the DOC that “[although Respondent asserts no such comparable sales exist, the information it does provide suggests at least the possibility of matches. In fact, the [deleted] units sold to [deleted], and thus the possibility of matches is extremely high.” Oct. 5, 1995 Letter from C. Verrill to R. Brown. In a letter entitled “Large Newspaper Printing Presses, etc., From Japan: General Comments on Investigation Period and Model Match Issues” Goss writes: calculating dumping margins using home market sales, including the differences in merchandise adjustment is a fairly simply exercise. Therefore, in light of the statutory preference for home market prices as the basis for normal value, we urge the Department at this stage in the investigation not to preclude the use of home market prices. Oct. 19, 1995 letter from C. Verrill to R. Brown. And again in an October 19, 1995 Letter to the Department, Goss represented “[t]he information contained in TKS’s section A response strongly indicated that matching of [deleted] sold in the United States with comparable [deleted] sold in Japan is possible.” Oct. 19, 1995 Letter from C. Verrill to R. Brown. Finally, in a letter dated October 26, 1995, Goss stated “Petitioner continues to believe that there is a strong probability that price-to-priee comparisons are possible.” Oct. 26, 1995, Letter from C. Verrill to R. Brown. The fact that Goss did indeed represent to the DOC that price to price comparisons were possible seems apparent from the DOC’s findings. In deciding to use constructed value, a cost-based analysis, as the basis for comparison, the DOC specifically noted that after Goss had an opportunity to review information provided by the Defendants Mitsubishi and TKS Japan, Goss argued price to price comparisons were appropriate. The Department specifically wrote: Petitioners, through counsel, then had an opportunity to comment materially on October 19, 1995. Petitioners have proposed several different matches between U.S. and home market sales for TKS and MHI which they now argue should be used for price-to-price comparison. Mem. from DOC Investig. Team to R. Moreland, “Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Japan.” No. A-588-837. “The doctrine of judicial estoppel prohibits a party from taking inconsistent positions in the same or related litigation.” Hossaini v. Western Missouri Medical Center, 140 F.3d 1140, 1142 (8th Cir.1998) (citing Wyldes v. Hundley, 69 F.3d 247, 251 n. 5 (8th Cir.1995)), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1172, 116 S.Ct. 1578, 134 L.Ed.2d 676 (1996) (quoting Morris v. California, 966 F.2d 448, 452 (9th Cir.1991)). “The purpose of judicial estoppel is to protect the integrity of the judicial process.” Total Petroleum, Inc. v. Davis, 822 F.2d 734, 737 n. 6 (8th Cir.1987); see also Monterey Dev. Corp. v. Lawyer’s Title Ins. Corp., 4 F.3d 605, 609 (8th Cir.1993) (noting judicial estoppel is “ ‘designed to preserve the dignity of the courts and insure order in judicial proceedings”). On one occasion, the Eighth Circuit characterized a party’s attempt to take inconsistent positions in the same or related litigation as “tantamount to a knowing misrepresentation to or even fraud on the court.” Total Petroleum, Inc., 822 F.2d at 737 n. 6. At the very least however, “judicial estoppel is limited to those instances in which a party takes a position that is clearly inconsistent with its earlier position.” Hossaini, 140 F.3d at 1143 (citing Linan-Faye Const. Co. v. Housing Auth. of Camden, 49 F.3d 915, 933 (3d Cir.1995)). Having thoroughly reviewed Goss’ submissions to the DOC, this Court does not believe Goss’ present position “is clearly inconsistent with its earlier position.” Hossaini, 140 F.3d at 1143. To the contrary, it seems Goss never unequivocally foreclosed the idea of price to price comparison and, as the DOC recognized, its position simply developed over-time with the benefit of new information. Moreover, four years have elapsed since the DOC’s findings and presumably more sales have been undertaken. It is not inconceivable that with the benefit of discovery in the present case, Goss’ chances of conducting a price to price comparison would greatly improve. C. Did Goss adequately allege that KBA Germany imported or assisted in importing netuspaper printing presses in order to state a claim against KBA Germany under the 1916 Antidump-ing Act? The Defendants argue that Goss has not alleged and cannot allege that KBA Germany imported or assisted in importing newspaper printing presses as required by the Act. Essentially, the Defendants argue that the German parent company “manufactures” large newspaper printing presses and sell them to their United States subsidiaries who then import them. This, the Defendants contend, is not importing or assisting with importing within the meaning of the Act. Goss’ complaint describes each of the foreign Defendants as a manufacturer of Newspaper Presses and Newspapers Press additions which “distributes these products” in the United States as well as other countries “through its affiliates and subsidiaries.” See Complaint, ¶¶ 3 & 5. Goss further alleges that “[e]ach of the Defendants has imported or assisted in importing Newspaper Presses and Newspaper Press components into the United States.” Complaint, ¶¶ 38 and 39. The Defendants maintain that this is insufficient to state a claim because the 1916 Act was not intended to reach foreign manufacturers but instead to prevent dumping by foreign manufacturers by proscribing dumping by their U.S. importers. The Act’s interpretive case law underpins the notion that the 1916 Act was intended to reach foreign manufacturers. See Schwimmer v. Sony Corp., 471 F.Supp. 793, 797 (E.D.N.Y.1979) (stating the 1916 Act was to protect United States industry “from the dumping of inexpensive products ... by the older established European manufactures”); Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., 35 F.Supp.2d 597, 604 (S.D.Ohio 1999) (purpose of the 1916 Act was to protect the country from “foreign trust, syndicates, and combinations” as well as “foreign companies owned or subsidized by foreign governments”); Geneva Steel, 980 F.Supp. at 1212 (1916 Act passed to remedy dumping by “European manufacturers”). Moreover, the 1916 Antidumping Act covers not simply importing but also assisting in importing. By arguing KBA Germany is essentially a manufacturer and an exporter and therefore not covered by the 1916 Act, the Defendants ignore the reality of its relationship with its subsidiary KBA NA. Defendant KBA Germany manufactures the presses, distributes them to its subsidiary, KBA NA, for the purpose of importing those presses to the United States. Indeed, according to the facts alleged in support of jurisdiction, Defendant KBA Germany is allegedly involved in the bidding process for its presses, and at the very least is aware of the pricing of its presses which are being sold in the U.S. market. It is this Court’s belief that these facts are at least sufficient to allege “assisting in importing” goods into the United States within the meaning of the 1916 Act. Accordingly, this Court finds Goss has sufficiently stated a claim against KBA Germany. D. Does this Court lack personal jurisdiction over KBA Germany and KBA NA in this forum, and is there proper venue as to these Defendants? Defendants KBA Germany and KBA NA argue that Goss cannot make out a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction and the case should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Additionally, Defendants KBA Germany and KBA NA contend they do not reside in or have an agent in this district and therefore the action against them should be dismissed for improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). When considering a jurisdictional challenge at the motion to dismiss stage, a district court has the authority to consider matters outside the pleadings. See Drevlow v. Lutheran Church, Mo. Synod, 991 F.2d 468, 470 (8th Cir.1993) (citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)); see also Southern Council of Indus. Workers v. Ford, 83 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir.1996) (citing Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 730 (8th Cir.1990)(stating “the trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case.”)); and Thompson v. Covington, 47 F.3d 974, 975 (8th Cir.1995) (citing Drevlow, 991 F.2d at 470). In so doing, “the court must look at the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, ..., and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of that party.” Dakota Industries v. Dakota Sportswear, 946 F.2d 1384, 1387 (8th Cir.1991) (internal quotations omitted); see also General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Grossman, 991 F.2d 1376, 1387 (8th Cir.1993). Accordingly, the Court will state the factual allegations as they relate to the issue of personal jurisdiction and venue over the KBA Defendants, viewing those facts in the light most favorable to Goss.* 1. Factual Allegations Underpinning Goss’ Prima Facie Showing of Jurisdiction a. The KBA Defendants’ Contacts with Iowa The KBA Defendants market their products in all 50 states. (Owen Dep. at 13, PX 4). Between 1995 and 1999 the KBA Defendants’ contacts with the state of Iowa, specifically, include 672 documented personal days, 2,512 telephone calls, 59 exchanges of correspondence, and advertisements in multiple trade magazines published in the state of Iowa. (PX 76 (Plaintiff created chart of KBA Defendants’ contacts with Iowa derived from PX’s 4, 5, 14, 17, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 78, and 79)). (i) The Des Moines Register KBA Germany and KBA NA had contacts with Iowa from 1993 to 1997 in connection with a bid for a press to the Des Moines Register. KBA NA began soliciting the Des Moines Register as a prospective customer in 1993. (Ryan Dep. at 8, PX 5). KBA Germany intended to manufacture the major components of the proposed press. (PX 13). KBA Germany also was heavily involved in the bid and bidding process, providing determinations of the press specifications, scheduling, and pricing decisions. (Owen Dep. at 137, PX 4; PXs 6, 7-12). Scott Smith, KBA NA’s president, wrote a letter to KBA NA’s CFO, Gerrit Zwergel, dated December 19, 1996, stating that Zwergel and KBA Germany’s President and CEO, Reinhart Siewert, would “have to sign off on this price level.” (PX 1). The price level Smith was referring to was identified as a “special price” of $30,250,000. (PX 1). In his request for price approval from Germany, Smith stated: Gerrit: You and Mr. Siewert have to sign off on this price level. I don’t believe KBA-Motter is capable of achieving our cost of sales (fully absorbed mfg./purehas-ing/eng. costs) given the Des Moines complete bill of material & a price of $30,250,000. This order will require financial backing of Wurzeburg. (PX 1 (emphasis in the original)). Smith also noted that MAN had previously sold “the same equipment” for $36,000,000, which was almost $6,000,000 more than KBA NA’s bid to the Des Moines Register, and that the DOC/ITC found that the MAN price was “at or below cost”. (PX 1). In March of 1997, KBA NA submitted the price of $30,250,000 to the Des Moines Register. This bid was approved by Sie-wert, KBA Germany’s President and CEO and signed by Zwergel. (Smith Dep. at 145-46, PX 14). The proposed press was to be manufactured and installed by both KBA Germany and KBA NA. (PXs 6 and 13). KBA NA’s correspondence to the Des Moines Register emphasized that “the team that is assembled here in York and in Wuerzburg will provide the knowledge and skill level to guarantee a successful project.” (PX 16). KBA NA’s proposal for the Des Moines contract anticipated that KBA Germany would send German employees to Iowa to install the press, and that KBA Germany and KBA NA technicians would be on site continually for six months during the installation. (Ryan Dep. at 37, PX 5) The bidding on the Des Moines press was prescribed by KBA Germany. Upon receiving the initial Request for Proposal from Des Moines, KBA NA sent it to KBA Germany. (PX 18). KBA Germany personnel determined and prepared the specifications, press configurations, scheduling, and cost and pricing information to be used in the bid, and sent that information to KBA NA. (PXs 7-12; PX 19; Owen Dep. at 137-38, PX 4; Smith Dep. at 68, 129-30, PX 14). KBA NA simply reformatted the information to fit the customer’s formatting requirements, and submitted it to the customer. (Owen- Dep. at 136, PX 4). This same process was repeated several times between September 1996 and March 1997, as KBA Germany prepared and forwarded to the United States several revised bid proposals. (PXs 7-12). At least one price quote was sent directly from KBA Germany to the Des Moines Register. (PX 20). Other prices, including the final “walkaway price” as of February 1997, were sent from KBA Germany to KBA NA in Pennsylvania. (PX 11). On March 11, 1997, the parties attended a final bid meeting at Gannet’s headquarters in Arlington, Virginia. (Ryan Dep. at 18, PX 5). KBA Germany’s Vice President of Engineering and Technology, Claus Bolza-Schunemann, traveled from Germany to attend the meeting and was an “active participant,” particularly on pricing issues. (Ryan Dep. at 18-20, PX 5). After that meeting, KBA NA asked Bolza-Schune-mann and Heinz Schmid of KBA Germany to help “reinforce our position at Gannett.” (PX 21). Travel to Des Moines: KBA NA salesman Richard Hirst initially visited the Des Moines Register in 1993, when he met with Austin Ryan, the Register’s Vice President of Production. (Ryan Dep. at 8, PX 5). Hirst continued to make sales calls to Ryan in Des Moines several times a year between 1993 and 1995. (Ryan Dep. at 49, PX 5; PX 22). After receiving the Request For Proposal from Des Moines in August 1996, KBA NA personnel traveled to Des Moines to discuss the proposal. (PXs 22, 23). On September 10, 1996, KBA NA salesmen Gary Owen and Hirst traveled to Des Moines to meet with Ryan. (PX 23; Ryan Dep. at 48-49, PX 5). On October 8, 1996, Owen, Hirst and Schmid of KBA Germany also met with Ryan in Des Moines. (PXs 22, 23; Ryan Dep. at 55-56, PX 5). In February 1997, KBA NA representatives again met with Ryan. (Ryan Dep. at 36, PX 5). Correspondence With Des Moines: The KBA Defendants sent “numerous pieces” of marketing material to Ryan in Des Moines before the contract discussions began. (Ryan Dep. at 40-41, PX 5). Throughout the proposal period, KBA NA sent nearly thirty letters, faxes, and other materials to the Des Moines Register. (PXs 24 and 25). Telephone Contacts With Des Moines: In connection with the bid, KBA NA made hundreds of telephone calls to Des Moines. Austin Ryan received phone calls from Schmid “numerous times.” (Ryan Dep. at 11-12, PX 5). Between 1995 and 1999, 584 telephone calls were made to Des Moines from KBA NA. (PXs 76 and 79). (ii). Sales to and Dealings With Lee Enterprises in Davenport, Iowa. Lee Enterprises, Inc. is headquartered in Davenport, Iowa. (Declarations of Ronald Rickman ¶ 2 (“Rickman Decl.”), PX 26). It owns approximately 19 newspapers and 100 other printing facilities throughout the United States. (Rickman Decl. ¶ 2, PX 26). Ronald Rickman was Lee Enterprises’ President of Newspapers from 1986 through 1999. (Rickman Deck ¶¶ 3-4, PX 26). From his office in Davenport, Rick-man was responsible for all of Lee Enterprises’ major equipment purchases. (Rickman Decl. ¶¶ 8-4, PX 26). In 1992 or 1993, KBA Germany and NA representatives contacted Rickman in Davenport and expressed interest in doing business with Lee Enterprises. (Rickman Decl. ¶ 6, PX 26). The KBA Defendants continued to solicit Lee Enterprises on a regular basis thereafter, sending Rickman brochures, updates on technology, and samples on a monthly basis. (Rickman Dec. ¶ 6, PX 26). Specifically, Reinhard Siewert, Hans Bolza-Schunemann, Scott Smith and Gary Owen visited Lee Enterprises’ headquarters in Davenport Iowa to discuss the sale and purchase of KBA presses. (Rickman Dec. ¶ 8, PX 26). Between 1993 and 1997, the KBA Defendants sold three major presses to Lee Enterprises and they continue to this day to do business with Lee Enterprises in Iowa. (Rickman Dec. ¶¶ 7-10, PX 26). The Racine and Decatur Press Sales, 1993-1995: In 1993, KBA Germany and NA bid on and won an $8.3 million contract to sell two Colormax flexographic newspaper printing presses to Lee Enterprises. (Smith Dep. at 97, PX 14; PX 27). Although the presses were for Lee’s newspapers in Decatur, Illinois and Racine, Wisconsin, there were extensive contacts relating to the solicitation, bidding, negotiation, contracting, and sale conducted through Lee Enterprises’ headquarters in Iowa, and the contract was signed by Lee Enterprises in Iowa. (Rickman Decl. ¶¶ 7-10, PX 26; PX 27). Representatives of both KBA Germany and KBA NA traveled to Iowa on different occasions to negotiate and consummate this transaction. (Rickman Decl. ¶ 8, PX 26; Owen Dep. at 80-81, PX 4). Shortly before the contract was signed, KBA NA’s President, Scott Smith, and two of its salesmen, Gary Owen and Richard Hirst, met with Ron Rickman in Davenport to discuss pricing and to compile a “final understanding” of what Lee Enterprises wanted. (Owen Dep. 52-54, PX 4). On November 2 and 3, 1993, KBA Germany’s then-President, Hans Bolza-Schunemann, and his successor, Reinhart Siewert, traveled from Germany to meet with several representatives of Lee' Enterprises in Iowa to discuss the sale. (Rickman Decl. ¶ 8, PX 26). KBA NA’s President, Smith, and its salesman, Owen, attended that same day two-day meeting. (Rickman Decl. ¶ 8, PX 26). Owen met with Rickman in Davenport on additional occasions as well. (Owen Dep. at 80-81, PX 4; PX 28). The KBA Defendants also engaged in continuing discussions and correspondence with Lee Enterprises in Iowa regarding these press sales. KBA NA transmitted letters, faxes, e-mails, and telephone calls into Iowa. (Smith Dep. at 108, PX 14; Owen Dep. at 57-58, PX 4; PX 29). Between October 1993 and December 1994, KBA NA and Lee Enterprises negotiated at least five addenda to the original contract. (Rickman Decl. at ¶ 10, PX 26; PX 20). After the presses were installed in 1995, Owen and Smith sent letters to Lee Enterprises in Iowa regarding these and other projects. (PX 31). These contacts spanned at least five years from 1993 through 1998. (PXs 29 and 31). Although the contract for the Decatur and Racine presses named KBA NA as the seller, KBA Germany’s most senior officers from Germany were directly involved in the sale. For example, on June 14, 1993, KBA Germany’s then-President, Hans Bolza-Schunemann, together with KBA NA’s general manager and a salesman, met in New Orleans with Rickman of Lee Enterprises to discuss the contract. (Rickman Decl. ¶ 8, PX 26; Ex. C). Bol-za-Schunemann also attended the two-day meeting in Iowa on November 2 and 3, 1993. (Rickman Decl. ¶ 8, PX 26). Iowa Globe Gazette Sale in Mason City, Iowa, 1991-Present: NBA NA has had ongoing contacts with Iowa for more than five years, and continuing to this day, in connection with the sale of a $1.3 million press to Lee Enterprises for the Mason City Press. (PX 32). The original contract for the Mason City Press was dated March 29, 1995, and followed “extensive negotiations” between the parties. (Rick-man Decl. at ¶ 11, PX 26; PX 32). Over the five-plus years since the contract was signed, KBA NA representatives have traveled to Iowa dozens of times, have had hundreds of telephone contacts, and have exchanged scores of correspondence and other communications with this state. (PX 76). CEO, Scott Smith, traveled to Mason City to meet with the customer. (Query Dep. at 18-19, PX 52). Pav and Dunleavy returned to Mason City in October 1995. (PXs 33 and 34). On March 14,1996, KBA NA’s salesman, Richard Hirst, traveled to Mason City. (PX 36). On May 1 and 2, 1996, Pav returned to Mason City accompa