Full opinion text
OPINION HIGGINBOTHAM, District Judge. INDEX Pages INTRODUCTION ________________________________________ 266-268 I. HISTORY OF THE ZENITH ACTION, C. A. NO. 74-2451 ___________________________________________ 266-267 II. HISTORY OF THE NUE ACTION, C.A. NO. 74-3247 267-268 FINDINGS OF FACT____________________________________ 268-284 I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS________________ 268 II. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES IN THE ZENITH ACTION AS ADOPTED BY THE COURT______ 268-284 A. HITACHI LIMITED AND HITACHI KADEN -- 268-272 1. Corporate Relationships for 1965-1974 ------ 268-270 a. Stock Ownership ------------------------ 268-269 b. Interlocking Directors and/or Officers -- 269-270 2. Sales________________________________________ 270 3. Contacts ------------------------------------ 270-271 a. Trademark Use-------------------------- 270-271 b. Presence in Pennsylvania---------------- 271 c. Corporate Agreements ------------------ 271-272 B. SANYO ELECTRIC CO., LTD. (DENKI) ------ 272-274 1. Corporate Relationships---------------------- 272-273 a. Stock Ownership ------------------------ 272 b. Interlocking Directors and/or Executive Officers for the period 1971-1974 ------ 272-273 2. Sales________________________________________ 273 3. Contacts ------------------------------------ 274 a. Trademarks ----------------------------- 274 b. Presence in Pennsylvania---------------- 274 c. Agreements ----------------------------- 274 Pages C. THE MATSUSHITA GROUP (MET, MEC, MET) 274-279 1. Corporate Relationships -------------------- 274-276 a. Stock Ownership ------------------------ 274-275 b. Interlocking Directors and/or Executive Officers ------------------------------ 275-276 2. Sales________________________________________ 276-277 3. Contacts ____________________________________ 277-279 a. Trademarks ----------------------------- 277 b. Presence in Pennsylvania-------- 277-278 c. Agreements ----------------------------- 278-279 1. MEI______________,__________________ 278-279 2. MEC ________________________________ 279 3. MET ________________________________ 279 4. Other Jurisdictional Information------------ 279 D. MELCO ________________________________________ 279-283 1. Corporate Relationships -------------------- 279-280 a. Stock Ownership ------------------------ 279-280 b. Interlocking Directors and/or Executive Officers-------------------------------- 280 2. Sales________________________________________ 280-281 3. Contacts ------------------------------------ 281-283 a. Trademark ------------------------------■ 281-282 b. Presence in Pennsylvania---------------- 282-283 c. Agreements ----------------------------- 283 E. SHARP CORPORATION ______________________ 283-284 1. Corporate Relationships --------------------- 283 a. Stock Ownership ------------------------ 283 b. Interlocking Directors and/or Executive Officers------------------------------- 283 2. Sales________________________________________ 284 3. Contacts ------------------------------------ 284 a. Trademarks ----------------------------- 284 b. Presence in Pennsylvania---------------- 284 c. Agreements ----------------------------- 284 III. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES IN THE NUE ACTION AS ADOPTED BY THE COURT------ 285-288 A. HITACHI KADEN _____________________________ 285 1. Corporate Relationships for 1965-1970 ------ 285 2. Sales________________________________________ 285 3. Contacts ------------------------------------ 285 a. Trademark ------------------------------ 285 b. Presence in New Jersey for 1965-1970 285 e. Agreements ----------------------------- 285 B. MELCO_________________________________________ 285-286 1. Corporate Relationships --------------------- 285 a. Stock Ownership ------------------------ 285 b. Interlocking Directors and/or Executive Officers------------ 285 Pages 2. Sales---------------------------------------- 285-286 3. Contacts ------------------------------------ 286 a. Trademark ------------------------------ 286 b. Presence in New Jersey------------------ 286 c. Agreements ----------------------------- 286 C. DENKI _________________________________________ 286-288 1. Corporate Relationships --------------------- 286-287 a. Stock Ownership ------------------------ 286 b. Interlocking Directors and/or Executive Officers------------------------------- 286-287 2. Sales---------------------------------------- 287 3. Contacts ------------------------------------ 287 a. Trademark ------------------------------ 287 b. Presence in New Jersey------------------ 287-288 c. Agreements ----------------------------- 288 IV. PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE NUE ACTION AS ADOPTED BY THE COURT --------------------- 288-309 A. HITACHI KADEN ________ 288-295 B. MELCO_________________________________________ 295-303 . C. DENKI _________________________________________ 303-309 V. ADDITIONAL FACTUAL FINDINGS ADOPTED BY THE COURT ________________________________ 309-317 A. HITACHI LIMITED AND HITACHI KADEN-- 309 B. DENKI _________________________________________ 309-310 C. MEI, MEC AND MET __________________________ 310-312 D. MELCO_________________________________________ 312-317 E. THE MOVING DEFENDANTS GENERALLY - 317 DISCUSSION ____________________________________________ 317-330 I. VENUE_____________________________________________ 317-328 II. JURISDICTION: THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEST .. 328-329 III. SERVICE OF PROCESS____________________________ 329-330 CONCLUSION____________________________________________ 330 INTRODUCTION I. HISTORY OF THE ZENITH ACTION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 7h-H51. On September 20, 1974, plaintiff Zenith Radio Corporation filed this antitrust action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming twenty-one Japanese an(* American corporations as defendants. On October 29, 1974, certain of the defendants moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to transfer this action to the District of New Jersey for consolidated pretrial proceedings with the previously filed case of National Union Electric Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., et al., Civil No. 1706/70. On November 25, 1974, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the NUE action to this Court. That same day, ‘this Court directed the defendants to file whatever pleadings they intended to file with respect to the complaint on or before January 2, 1975. On that date, eight defendants herein — Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (“MEI”), Matsushita Electronics Corporation (“MEC”), Matsushita Electric Trading Co., Ltd. (“MET”), Sharp Corporation (“Sharp”), Hitachi, Ltd. (“Limited”), Hitachi Kaden Hanbai Kabushiki Kaisha (“Kaden”), Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (“MEL-CO”), and Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. (“DENKI”) — moved this Court pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the action as to them for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and insufficient service of process. These issues were briefed, then argued for four days, from February 3, 1975 to February 6,1975. In addition, the Court propounded to the moving defendants interrogatories designed to elicit facts that were not yet of record but were relevant to the determination of the issues of venue, jurisdiction and process. The defendants having answered these interrogatories, the issues are now ripe for decision. I have examined these answers, as well as the affidavits and exhibits submitted by the plaintiff and the defendants in support of their respective positions. On the basis of my examination of this extensive factual record, I have concluded that this Court may exercise jurisdiction over each of the moving defendants, that venue is proper for each of them in this district, and that each of them has been adequately served with process. Accordingly, their motions to dismiss will be denied. II. HISTORY OF THE NUE ACTION CIVIL ACTION NO. 7A-3U7. Plaintiff National Union Electric Corporation filed this antitrust action in the District of New Jersey on December 21, 1970. The complaint named as defendants seven Japanese manufacturing corporations and seven United States sales subsidiaries or affiliates of those Japanese manufacturing corporations. An amended complaint added three other Japanese corporations as defendants. In their responses to the NUE complaint, six defendants raised defenses related to venue, jurisdiction and service of process. Three of those defendants have since withdrawn those defenses, so that presently only Hitachi Kaden Hanbai Kabushiki Kaisha (“Kaden”), Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (“MELCO”), and Sanyo Electric Company, Ltd. (“DENKI”) contest venue, jurisdiction and service of process. After extensive discovery related to these issues, NUE .moved in June, 1973, pursuant to Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for a hearing and final determination prior to trial of the defenses of improper venue, lack of personal jurisdiction and insufficiency of service of process. As of November 25,1974, however, when the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, transferred the action to this Court for consolidated pretrial proceedings, no determination of the validity of these defenses had been made. In February, 1975, during oral argument on other issues in this multidistrict litigation, counsel for both sides waived argument on these defenses and submitted the issues to the Court on briefs, as supported by the affidavits and exhibits filed by the respective parties, and as supplemented by the answers of the contesting defendants to interrogatories propounded by the Court at the oral argument. The issues are now ripe for decisión, and for the sake of procedural consistency with the parallel Zenith action, I shall treat them as raised by motions to dismiss made by Kaden, MELCO and DENKI pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. My examination of the voluminous factual record of this action leads me inexorably to the conclusion that the three moving defendants are amenable to jurisdiction and venue in the District of New Jersey, and have been adequately served with process. Their motions to dismiss will therefore be denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS. In support of their defenses based on lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and insufficient service of process, the various defendants have filed numerous affidavits, some of them sworn to by defense counsel, others by officers of the defendant corporations. In large part, these affidavits recite a litany of non-contacts with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the Zenith action, and with the District of New Jersey in the NÜE action and a similar litany of non-control over the day-to-day operations of their subsidiary or affiliated corporations. Each of the affidavits is offered to bolster one or both of the moving defendants’ two basic contentions: (1) that their non-transaction of business in the relevant forums immunizes them from jurisdiction, venue and process; and/or (2) that they do not exercise day-to-day control of their subsidiaries who do transact business in the relevant forums, and therefore may not be reached through these subsidiaries for purposes of jurisdiction, venue and process. In both actions, however, plaintiffs introduced evidence sufficient to make me hesitate to render a decision on the basis of defendants’ often conclusory affidavits. Accordingly, I propounded interrogatories to the appropriate defendants in both the Zenith and NUE actions, seeking more detailed information about their corporate relationships, their sales and their contacts with the two districts where the plaintiffs attempt to establish jurisdiction and venue. In order to make the factual basis for my decisions on the instant matters clear, I now set forth and find as facts (1) defendants' answers to the Court’s interrogatories in the Zenith and NUE actions; (2) those of plaintiff's proposed findings of fact in the NUE action that are reasonably supported by the evidence ; and (3) other factual submissions of the plaintiffs that are relevant to the issues raised by the moving defendants. II. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES IN THE ZENITH ACTION AS ADOPTED BY THE COURT A. Hitachi Limited and Hitachi Kaden. 1. Corporate Relationships for 1965-1974. a. Stock Ownership. Until 1973, Kaden was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Limited, a Japanese manufacturing corporation. In April, 1973, Limited sold 21.8% of Kaden’s stock to the public, retaining the remaining 78.2%. Kaden wholesales consumer products, purchased from Limited and others, throughout Japan and the world. Prior to 1969, Kaden had confined its wholesaling activities to the domestic Japanese market. Hitachi Sales Corporation of America (“HSCA”) has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kaden since 1969, when Kaden purchased all of HSCA’s stock from Limited for more than $1 million cash. HSCA distributes consumer products, purchased from Kaden and others, throughout the mainland United States. Since January, 1973, HSCA has been manufacturing in California and these products now account for approximately 10% of HSCA’s sales. b. Interlocking Directors and/or Officers. Mr. M. Naito was general manager of Limited’s Second Export Sales office from January, 1965 to August, 1965, and deputy general manager of Limited’s Consumer Electronics Division from August, 1965 to November, 1967. He was executive managing director of Kaden from November, 1967 to November, 1973, and has been senior executive managing director of Kaden from November, 1973 to the present. He was a director of HSCA from January, 1965 to July, 1968. Mr. T. Shoubouchi was deputy general manager of Limited’s Consumer Electronics Division from February, 1965 to August, 1965, general manager of Limited’s Yokohama Works from August, 1965 until February, 1969, and deputy general manager of Limited’s Consumer Products Group from February, 1969 to November, 1969. He was a director of Kaden from May, 1968 to May, 1970. He was a director of HSCA from January, 1965 to July, 1968. Mr. K. Nishi was executive managing director of Limited from January, 1965 to March, 1965, senior executive managing director from March, 1965 to November, 1969, and a director of Limited from November, 1969 to November, 1971. He was president of Kaden from January, 1965 to November, 1973, and has been chairman of Kaden from November, 1973 to the present. He was a director of HSCA from May, 1966 to June, 1973. Mr. B. Hayashi has been general manager of Limited’s Subsidiaries Office from January, 1965 to the present. He was a director of HSCA from August, 1965 to July, 1968. Mr. N. Takahashi was executive managing director of Kaden from January, 1965 to December, 1968, and senior executive managing director from December, 1968 to November, 1973, and has been vice president and director of Kaden from November, 1973 to the present. He was a director of HSCA from July, 1968 to June, 1973. Mr. T. Komoriya has been a director of HSCA from January, 1965 to the present, and was vice president of HSCA from May, 1966 to April, 1971. Though he has not held any positions with Limited or Kaden, he has been president of Hitachi America, Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Limited, from 1965 to the present. Mr. I. Kawamato has been a director of Kaden from May, 1969 to the present. He has been a director of HSCA from June, 1973 to the present. Mr. T. Yoshida was a director of Limited from January, 1965 to November, 1968, executive managing director of Limited from November, 1968 to November, 1971, and senior executive managing director of Limited from November, 1970 to November, 1973. He was a director of Kaden from January, 1965 to August, 1965, executive managing director of Kaden from August, 1965 to December, 1968, vice president and director of Kaden from December, 1968 to November, 1973, and has been president and director of Kaden from November, 1973 to the present. He has been a director of HSCA from June, 1973 to the present. Mr. T. Takahashi has been executive managing director of Limited from November, 1973 to the present. He has been a director of Kaden from November, 1973 to the present. Mr. H. Arinobu was deputy general manager of Limited’s Consumer Products Division from May, 1968 to February, 1969, and deputy general manager of Limited’s Consumer Products Group from February, 1969 to November, 1969. He was a director of Kaden from May, 1968 to May, 1970. Limited’s total number of directors has varied from a low of 19 in 1967 to a high of 25 in 1973. Presently Limited has 24 directors. Kaden’s total number of directors has varied from a low of 12 in 1971 to a high of 16 in 1969. Presently Kaden has 15 directors. HSCA had a total of 5 directors prior to 1968; from 1968 to date, 6 directors. 2. Sales. The approximate volume of Limited’s and Kaden’s sales that were destined for ultimate export to the United States during the relevant time period are listed in the table below. Both Limited and Kaden concede that because HSCA and Hitachi America Limited (“HAL”) sell throughout the United States a significant amount of their products ultimately arrive in Pennsylvania and in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Both Limited and Kaden deny that they have sold any goods directly to customers in Pennsylvania during the five years preceding the date of the Zenith complaint. Approximate Sales of Products Ultimately Destined For United States (millions of dollars) Fiscal Year Limited Kaden 1965 17 0 1966 31 0 1967 45 0 1968 55 0 1969 76 12 1970 87 13 1971 88 15 1972 109 28 1973 70 24 1974 (First Half) 21 10 Both HSCA and HAL concede that they have made substantial sales into Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Total sales in the United States by both HSCA and HAL are listed in the following table. Total Sales (in millions of dollars) Fiscal Year HSCA HAL 1965 4.7 0.3 1966 4.1 1.0 1967 5.6 3.5 1968 11.3 5.8 1969 20.6 8.1 1970 31.7 8.2 1971 47.4 25.1 1972 52.1 39.7 1973 56.6 79.9 1974 (First Half) 27.3 N.A. 3. Contacts. Trademark Use. Limited and Kaden concede that the “Hitachi” trademark was used in advertisements, publications and brochures which were distributed in Pennsylvania between 1965 and 1974. Institutional-type advertisements were placed by Limited in the following publications: Wall Street Journal (1969-1972, 4 times per year) Fortune (1965-1974, 4 times per year) Time (1965-1974, 5 times per year) Business Week (1968-1974, 4-5 times per year) Scientific American (1974, 4 times per year) Playboy (1969-1974, 2 times per year) Reader’s Digest (1967-1973, 2 times per year) Life (1965-1972, 4 times a year) Life (Special Edition) (1974, 1 time per year) Electronics Magazine (1965-1974, 1-2 times per year) Telephony Magazine (1965-1974, 1-2 times per year) No advertising placed by Kaden circulated anywhere in the United States. Substantial advertising, brochures, promotional literature, etc., placed, distributed or generated by HSCA and HAL were distributed and circulated throughout the entire United States, including Pennsylvania, during the 1965-1974 period and most, if not all, of this material carried the “Hitachi” trademark or logo. b. Presence in Pennsylvania. According to Limited’s own estimate, there have been approximately 50 or more visits per year by Limited employees to Pennsylvania during the past 5 years. The visits have been one or two days in length, except for employees who have come to Pennsylvania as students at a university or seminar and have no business purpose. The students visits are included in the estimated number of visits given above. Limited estimates that fewer than 10% of its visitors to Pennsylvania have any sales purpose, the remainder being engineers or technicians seeking technical information (estimated 65% of visitors) or concerned with patent licenses (estimated 25% of visitors). Approximately seven employees of Kaden have visited Pennsylvania since 1969. In 1970, Mr. H. Horiguchi, Department Manager, First Sales Department, International Division, visited Philadelphia. Mr. N. Miyazaki, First Sales Department, International Division, visited Pittsburgh to discuss possible business with Westinghouse. Mr. S. Suzuki, Manager, North America Sec., International Division, visited Pennsylvania for research purposes. In 1971, Mr. K. Tsukino, North America Sec., International Division, visited Pittsburgh to attend an search purposes. In 1972, Mr. K. Sugiyama, North America Sec., International Division, visited Pittsburgh to attend an HSCA regional show. In 1973, Mr. T. Sato, North America See., International Division, visited Pittsburgh to attend an HSCA regional show. Mr. J. Ino, First Sales Department, International Division, visited Philadelphia to purchase samples at Proeter-Silex Inc., Philadelphia. Kaden estimates that each visit has been one or two days in length, c. Corporate Agreements. Limited has entered into patent licensing agreements with seven corporations having their principal places of business in Pennsylvania. These are: Licensor: Selas Corporation of America (Dresher, Pa. 19025) Licensee: Hitachi, Ltd. Executed: August 1, 1974 (Renewal) (Former agreement remained effective from December, 1966 until this agreement was made.) Effective: November 15, 1974-November 14, 1984. Licensor: The Benfield Corporation (640 Spruce Lane, Berwyn, Pa. 19142). , Licensee: Hitachi, Ltd. Executed: December 20, 1968. Effective: February 18, 1969-February 17, 1979. Licensor: Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse Building, Gateway Center, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15222). Licensee: Hitachi, Ltd. Executed: August 16, 1970. Effective: December 7, 1970-Sep-tember 29, 1976. Licensor: Philco-Ford Corporation (Tioga and C Streets, Philadelphia, Pa. 19134). Licensee: Hitachi, Ltd. Three Licenses: Executed: January, 1972; August 8, 1973; February 25, 1974. Effective: March 21, 1972-July 8, 1975; October 16, 1973-October 17, 1983; April 16, 1974-Septem-ber 27, 1982, respectively. Licensor: Blaw-Knox Foundry & Mill Machinery, Inc. (One Olive Plaza, Pittsburgh, Pa. 15222). Licensee: Hitachi, Ltd. Executed: April 27, 1967. Effective: August 29, 1967-August 28, 1977. Licensor: Hitachi, Ltd. Licensee: Blaw-Knox Executed: June 11, 1969 Effective: June 11, 1969-June 10, 1979. Licensor: Hitachi, Ltd. Licensee: Westinghouse Executed: December 27, 1973 Effective: December 27, 1973- December 26, 1983. Limited has agreements with other corporations having their principal place of business outside of Pennsylvania, but which may or may not have “business facilities” in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. For example, Limited has a major licensing agreement with RCA Corporation, a large New York corporation which probably has some facility in Pennsylvania. Limited has a patent licensing agreement with Zenith, an Illinois-based company that has a recently acquired plant in Pennsylvania, and Limited has an agreement with General Electric Corp., New York, which also has facilities in Pennsylvania. Kaden has no agreements with any corporation having any facilities in Pennsylvania. B. Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. (Denki). 1. Corporate Relationships a. Stock Ownership. DENKI, a Japanese manufacturing corporation, owns 83% of the stock of Sanyo Electric Trading Co., Ltd. (“TRADING”) and owned that same percentage of TRADING’S stock throughout the period 1965-1974. The other 17% of TRADING'S stock is owned by third persons. Since 1972 DENKI and TRADING have each owned 50% of the stock of Sanyo Electric, Inc. (“INCO”). During the period 1965 to 1972 DENKI owned 100% of the stock in INCO. In 1972 DENKI sold 50% of its stock holdings in INCO to TRADING. b. Interlocking Directors and/or Executive Officers for the Period 1971-1974. Mr. Y. Iue was director and chairman of the Board of DENKI. He was director and chairman of the board of TRADING. Mr. K. Iue was a director of DENKI, TRADING and INCO. He was president and chief executive officer of DENKI, and president of TRADING. In 1971, he was chairman of the board of INCO, and in 1970 and prior years he was president of INCO." Mr. Komuro was a director of DENKI, TRADING and INCO. He was executive managing director and chief executive officer of TRADING. Mr. Yanase was a director of DENKI and TRADING. He was managing director of DENKI, and executive managing director of TRADING. Mr. Nakai was a director of DENKI and INCO, and managing director of DENKI. DENKI’s Board of Directors consists of 27 members, several of whom are outside directors and four of whom are on the twelve-man Board of TRADING. Of those four on the Board of TRADING, two are on the nine-man Board of INCO. One other director of DENKI is also a director of INCO. 2. Sales Sales by TRADING to United States customers, including INCO, were as follows (converted to dollars and rounded): 1965 $18,306,000 1970 $ 94,144,000 1966 36,950,000 1971 109,564,000 1967 36,892,000 1972 128,890,000 1968 62,161,000 1973 117,214,000 1969 87,858,000 1974 128,050,000 The above sales figures are for fiscal years ending in November. Since most of TRADING’S United States customers sell nation-wide, such as INCO, Sears and Magnavox, a percentage of its customers’ sales undoubtedly were made to ultimate consumers in Pennsylvania. Counsel for DENKI have informed the Court that, on the average, approximately 99 percent of TRADING’S dollar sales figures for the 1965-1974 period were of DENKI manufactured products. This 99 percent figure represents the known sales of all DENKI manufactured products to United States customers in each of the fiscal years indicated. DENKI does sell its products to Japanese trading companies other than TRADING, and these companies may in turn resell and export these DENKI products to customers in the United States. DENKI’s counsel have informed the Court that these sales are “small and sporadic” when compared with TRADING’S sales to United States customers. INCO’s dollar sales in the United States, and in Pennsylvania separately, during the calendar years 1972, 1973 and 1974, were as follows: 1972 Penna. $ 2,130,087 1972 U. S. 63,607,749 1973 Penna. 2,579,646 1973 U. S. 88,924,411 1974 Penna. 3,740,598 1974 U. S. 95,706,611 Although figures on INCO sales in Pennsylvania for years prior to 1972 are not available, the following figures represent INCO’s total sales in the United States for the fiscal years ending March 31: 1965 $ 5,905,980 1969 $24,072,124 1966 5,546,736 1970 17,901,270 1967 9,978,257 1971 31,976,125 1968 11,059,891 All sales by INCO from 1965 through 1970 were sales to private label customers. For the years 1972, 1973 and 1974, where INCO does have data on sales by its private label department to customers by state, the records show that there were no sales to Pennsylvania-based customers. 3. Contacts a. Trademarks. Prior to 1971, no Sanyo brand name products were marketed in the United States. Between 1971 and 1974, the Sanyo trademark was used in advertisements that appeared in national magazines such as Home Furnishings Daily. Most such publications are distributed in Pennsylvania. INCO places the advertisements for Sanyo brand name products in nationally distributed United States publications, but was not able to list the national publications in which such advertisements appeared or the issue dates thereof in the time allotted to answer the Court’s interrogatories. Local retailers regularly use trademarks of their suppliers in advertisements which the retailers place in local newspapers. Thus the Sanyo trademark has appeared in various advertisements of local retailers in most of Pennsylvania’s metropolitan area newspapers. INCO, in the years 1971 to 1974, also has distributed sales brochures utilizing the Sanyo trademark to wholesalers and retailers in Pennsylvania. These brochures are generally printed and distributed annually. b. Presence in Pennsylvania. In September and October, 1971, Mr. T. Naitoh visited Sears in Philadelphia to supervise the repair of television receivers. In March, 1972, Mr. T. Shigematsu visited Lancaster to view facilities of the Hamilton Watch Company. In July, 1972, Messrs. M. Satoh and R. Kozuki visited West Chester to view facilities of Lasko Metal Parts, Inc. In November, 1972, Mr. H. Doi visited West Chester to view the same facilities. In April, 1973, Mr. S. Nakamura visited West Chester to view the same facilities. In June, 1973, Messrs. S. Furushita and T. Mizutani visited West Chester to view the same facilities. In June, 1973, Messrs. T. Yamano and H. Ozu visited Lancaster, Montgomeryville and Conshohoeken to view the facilities of the Hamilton Watch Company, the Solid State Scientific Company and Sunstein Engineering Corporation respectively. Mr. M. Watanabe also visited Sunstein in June, 1973, for the same purpose. In November, 1973, Mr. T. Kameyama visited West Chester to view the facilities of Lasko Metal Parts, Inc. In December, 1973, Mr. T. Yokota visited West Chester to view the same facilities. In February, 1974, Messrs. M. Takuma, H. Doi and I. Morimoto visited West Chester to view the same facilities. In April, 1974, Mr. I. Odaki visited West Chester to view the same facilities. In July, 1974, Messrs. Y. Miyake and Mr. Naba visited West Chester to view the same facilities. Each of these visits was at most a few days in duration. c. Agreements. DENKI did not enter into any contracts or agreements with corporations that have business facilities located in Pennsylvania. C. The Matsushita Group (MEI, MEC, MET). 1. Corporate Relationships, a. Stock Ownership As of Noveñiber 20, 1974, MEI, a Japanese manufacturing eorporation, owned 65% of MEC’s stock (N. V. Philips Gloeilampen-fabrieken owned the remaining 35%). On the same date, MEI owned 54.4% of MET’s stock (the public owned the remainder). On the same date, MEI owned 100% of the stock of Matsushita Electric Corporation of America (“MECA”), and MECA in turn owned 100% of the stock of Quasar Electronics Corporation (“QEC”). MEI’s stock ownership of MET and MEC for the period 1965-1974 was: YEAR MET MEC 1965 57.4% 70% 1966 52.4 70 1967 52.4 70 1968 52.4 65 1969 52.4 65 1970 52.2 65 1971 53 65 1972 53 65 1973 54.4 65 1974 54.4 65 MEI’s 100% stock ownership of MECA has existed since 1959. MECA’s 100% stock ownership of QEC has existed since 1974. MET owned about 0.2% of MEI’s stock in 1973-74, and about 0.1% in 1969-72. MEC owned about 0.4% of MEI’s stock in 1973-74, and about 0.3% in 1969-72. b. Interlocking Directors and/or Executive Officers. Mr. K. Matsushita was chairman of MEI from 1965 to 1972, and a director of MEI as of 1974. He was chairman of MECA from 1965 to 1974. He was a director of MET from 1965 to 1973. He was president of MEC in 1965, chairman of MEC from 1966 to 1970, and a director of MEC as of 1974. Mr. M. Matsushita was president of MEI from 1965 to 1974. He was a director of MECA from 1965 to 1974, and chairman of MECA .in 1974. He was a director of MET from 1965 to 1974. He was a director of MEC from 1965 to 1971, and chairman of MEC from 1972 to 1974. He was a director of QEC in 1974. Mr. T. Nakao was senior managing director of MEI from 1965 to 1967, and executive vice president of MEI from 1967 to 1974. He was a director of MECA and MEC from 1967 to 1974. Mr. A. Takahashi was executive vice president of MEI from 1965 to 1972, and chairman of MEI in 1973 and 1974. He was a director of both MECA and MEC from 1965 to 1974. He was chairman of MET from 1965 to 1974. Mr. H. Tanimura was a managing director of MEI in 1965 and 1966, senior managing director of MEI from 1967 to 1970, and executive vice president of MEI from 1972 to 1974. He was a director of MET from 1965 to 1970. He was a director of both MECA and MEC from 1965 to 1974. Mr. M. Hino was a managing director of MEI from 1965 to 1974. He was auditor of MET from 1965 to 1974, and auditor of MEC from 1966 to 1974. Mr. K. Matsuno was a director of MEI from 1965 to 1969, and a managing director of MEI from 1967 to 1972. He was a director of MET from 1965 to 1972. Mr. K. Takeoka was senior managing director of MEI in 1974. He was vice chairman and a director of MECA in 1974. He was chairman and chief executive officer of QEC in 1974. Mr. K. Isomura was a director of MEI in 1969 and 1970, and managing director of MEI from 1971 to 1974. He was president of MECA from 1965 to 1972, and a director of MET from 1971 to 1974. He was a director of QEC in 1974. Mr. A. Harada was a director of MEI from 1972 to 1974. He was president of MECA during those years and a board member and director of MECA from 1971 to 1974. He was also vice chairman of QEC in 1974. Mr. T. Inai was a director of MEI from 1966 to 1970, managing director of MEI in 1971 and 1972, and senior managing director of MEI in 1973 and 1974. He was also a director of MECA from 1970 to 1974. Mr. K. Ogawa was a managing director of MEI from 1965 to 1974, and a director of MEC during the same years. Mr. M. Miyoshi was a director of MEI from 1965 to 1974. He was senior managing director of MEC from 1965 to 1969, executive vice president of MEC in 1970, and president of MEC from 1971 to 1974. Mr. S. Matsumoto was a director of MEC from 1965 to 1967. He was executive vice president of MEC in 1965, and president of MEC in 1966 and 1967. Mr. T. Fujio was a managing director of MEI in 1965 and 1966, and senior managing director of MEI from 1967 to 1970. He was also a director of MEC from 1965 to 1970. Mr. H. Saeki was a director of MEI from 1967 to 1970, a managing director of MEI in 1971 and 1972, and a senior managing director of MEI in 1973 and 1974. He was also a director of MEC from 1968 to 1974. 2. Sales. MEI, MEC and MECA have requested that the figures for their sales of goods in the United States (for MECA) or destined for the United States (for MEI and MEC) be kept confidential. Though I see little need for such a request, I will honor it. The sales figures submitted by these three corporations have therefore been impounded. They will, of course, be available for review by an appellate court. In round figures, MEI’s sales of goods destined for the United States during the years 1965-1974 ranged from a low of $31,100,000 to a high of $288,000,000. During the same period, MEC’s sales of goods destined for the United States ranged from a low' of approximately $430,000 to a high of approximately $6,425,000. For the years 1970-1974, MECA’s sales of goods in the United States ranged from a low of about $200,000,000 to a high of about $400,000,000. MET has made no request for confidentiality. Its sales of goods destined for the United States during the relevant time period were as follows: 1965 $ 33,354,000 1966 56.332.000 1967 87.660.000 1968 126.519.000 1969 178.337.000 1970 221.070.000 1971 282.142.000 1972 327.430.000 1973 303.602.000 1974 322.010.000 MEI, MET and MEC could not trace the amount of their merchandise which ultimately arrived in Pennsylvania or the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, with the exception of $424,000 worth of MET goods which was shipped to the port of Philadelphia in 1973. (Affidavit of S. Cteaki, |f4.) Sales from MECA’s warehouses into Pennsylvania were approximately $15 million in 1974; $14.4 million in 1973; and $12.1 million in 1972. These figures may include sales of MECA to Leeds-Fox, an independent distributor headquartered in New Jersey responsible for distribution of Panasonic products for the eastern half of Pennsylvania including the Philadelphia area, as well as New Jersey and the Wilmington, Delaware area, in those years. At all events, Leeds-Fox’s sales of Panasonic merchandise into Pennsylvania would be substantial in 1972, 1973 and 1974. 3. Contacts. a. Trademarks. The Panasonic trademark is owned by MEI. MECA frequently places advertisements in national magazines, such as Time, Newsweek, Business Week, Fortune, Playboy, Sports Illustrated, and the like in which the Panasonic trademark is used. These magazines are, of course, distributed in Pennsylvania, including the Eastern District. In addition, MECA’s products under the Panasonic mark are advertised on either national or local television programs, including local ads in the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas. Similarly, MECA’s Panasonic products are advertised on the radio, in national trade journals and in local dealer advertisements. In the late 1960’s MEI also placed some national ads in the United States. b. Presence in Pennsylvania. MEI. On three occasions in 1974, MEI personnel participated in one-day seminars conducted by MECA in Philadelphia in connection with distributor shows and in Pittsburgh. One took place in May, one in October and one in November. On October 29, 1974, the Panasonic •Caravan was in Pittsburgh where another presentation was made. The May visit involved a orie-day presentation by MECA personnel in Philadelphia, assisted with respect to technical matters by Messrs. Takaobushi, Tatsumi and Uemuta, MEI employees visiting from Japan. Also in 1974, there were visits by certain MEI-salaried engineers to the Philco-Ford plant in Lansdale, Pa., once every two or three months. Those engineers are located in either New York or Chicago. Although paid by MEI, they are employed by MECA to provide technological assistance and assist MECA in the sale of components. The visits to the Philco-Ford plant were made by one (or possibly two) of these engineers for the purpose of soliciting business on behalf of MECA. These visits resulted in sales of products by MECA in Pennsylvania. In 1974, Mr. Y. Yoshida, an MEI employee, made two visits to the United States from Japan, accompanied by Mr. K. Uegaki, an employee of an MEI subsidiary, National Tire Co., Ltd. In April and in October, 1974, these gentlemen visited Pennsylvania with Mr. Stewart Silbaugh, Assistant Sales Manager of MECA’s Bicycle Department, to be present at the opening of new MECA bicycle accounts. These trips lasted about three days and some 10-15 dealers were visited in such towns as Pittsburgh, Harrisburg and Philadelphia. In 1973, there were three one-day visits by Messrs. Silbaugh and Yoshida to Pittsburgh, Greenville and Lancaster, Pennsylvania. These visits were for the same purpose as the 1974 visits previously described. In 1973, Mr. Tom Hiroki, an MEI-salaried employee on loan to MECA as a trainee, visited dealers and checked to see that televisions in their stores were functioning and properly displayed. Although the majority of his visits were in Ohio, Mr. Hiroki also visited dealers’ stores located in the western part of Pennsylvania. Also in 1973, an MEI employee made a one-day visit to Harrisburg, Pa., to investigate the price and availability of motors for certain other home appliances. In November, 1973, Mr. K. Kato, an employee of MEI’s television products division, accompanied Mr. C. Toda, an MECA employee, on a one-day trip to the Philco-Ford cabinet factory located in Watsontown, Pennsylvania to investigate the availability and price of parts for cabinets. He also went with Mr. Toda to Cabinet Industry, a company located in Danville, Pennsylvania for the same purpose. In 1972, one (possibly two) MEI employees from Japan visited, Harrisburg, Pa., in connection with electric motors for vacuum cleaners. In 1970, there were two visits by MEI employees from Japan to Philadelphia to attend a video demonstration show and to visit certain dealers in the area. In 1969, Mr. M. Higuchi, MEI’s general manager for the manufacture of electric motors, visited the United States. On one day, he visited Schick Electric Company in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. In 1964-66, Mr. Yamamoto, an MEI employee, lived in Philadelphia while he worked with the PhilcoFord plant in Lansdale in connection with the latter’s purchase of black and white television picture tubes from Japan. MEC. In 1974, Mr. Tatashi Suyama, an MEC-salaried engineer working for MECA in Chicago, visited the Philco-Ford plant in Lansdale, Pa., two or three times for one day each. These visits were for the purpose of soliciting sales of electronic components on behalf of MECA. Mr. Suyama made a similar visit to Lutron Electronics in Coopersburg, Pa. in 1974. In 1973, Mr. Suyama made one or two visits to the Philco-Ford plant in Lansdale, Pa., for a similar purpose. Also, there were one or two courtesy visits by one or two MEC employees from Japan to the Philco-Ford plant in 1973. MET. In May, 1974, Mr. Tazuke visited McDanel Refractory Porcelain Co. of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania. In February, 1974, Mr. Shimamura visited the offices of Ajax International Corp. of Erie, Pennsylvania. In May, 1969, Mr. R. Yanagiuchi, an MET employee working for MECA, escorted two employees of a Japanese subsidiary of MEI, to Bluebell, Pennsylvania for a courtesy visit to Philco-Ford. In either January or February, 1968, Mr. S. Iimura of MET made a courtesy visit to Philco-Ford’s Bluebell plant, accompanied by Mr Yanagiuchi. c. Agreements 1. MEI MEI has over sixty license agreements with U. S. companies still in effect where MEI is the licensee. Although MEI cannot say with certainty whether any of those companies are Pennsylvania corporations, or have their headquarters in Pennsylvania, this seems not to be the case. At all events, approximately sixteen of those companies appear to have facilities in Pennsylvania, including such companies as General Electric, Dynamics Corp., Philco-Ford, CBS, Honeywell, RCA, Aireo, Inc., Magnavox, Scovill Manufacturing Co., Singer, and Zenith. MEI has approximately six agreements with U. S. companies as licensor, none of which appear to be Pennsylvania corporations or headquartered in Pennsylvania. Those companies are Data Technology Corp. of California, Minnesota Mining of St. Paul, Minnesota, P. R. Mallory & Co. of Indiana, Carborundum Company of Niagara Falls, New York, SCM Corp. of New York and General Electric Co. of New York. There were some twelve license agreements between MEI and U. S. companies that have been terminated, but again, those companies appear to be located outside of Pennsylvania, although they may have facilities in Pennsylvania. These include agreements with Admiral, Bell & Howell, Bendix Westinghouse, Corning Glass, Globe Union, Kelvinator International, McGraw Edison, Singer and Standard Kollman Industries. 2. MEC MEC has one license agreement in the United States, with Texas Instruments of Dallas, Texas. MEC does not know whether that company has any Pennsylvania facilities. 3. MET MET has some twenty-four distributorship agreements with U. S. companies under which MET sells those companies’ products in Japan. Including in this group are three companies with Pennsylvania addresses: Ajax International Corp. of Erie, Pa.; McDanel Refractory Porcelain Co. of Pennsylvania; and Palmer Products, Inc. of Worcester, Pa. MET could not ascertain whether these or the other companies have facilities in Pennsylvania. MET also has an agreement with Vivitar Corp. of Los Angeles, Calif. 4. Other Jurisdictional Information. On February 5, plaintiff’s counsel provided the Court with copies of two newspaper articles, one captioned “TV Sets Made by Matsushita Ordered Recalled by the F. D. A.” (New York Times, January 12, 1975) and the other headlined “Japanese Recall 407,000 TVs for Radiation Woe” (Philadelphia Bulletin, January 14, 1975). Defendants have supplied the Court with the following information about the substance of those articles. On December 12, 1974, MECA, not MEI, was directed by the Bureau of Radiological Health (part of the Food and Drug Administration) to present a plan for the repair of certain color television sets manufactured by MEI and some of its affiliated companies so as to bring them into compliance with the applicable federal radiation standards, and to notify consumers, dealers and distributors of how their sets can be corrected. Those sets are sold under the brand name Panasonic. The approximate number involved is 300,000. A similar direction was sent to the J. C. Penney and W. T. Grant companies, not MEI, with respect to certain of their color television sets which were manufactured by MEI and some of its affiliated companies, which sets are sold under the private brand names of those companies. The approximate number of sets involved for those two companies was between 65,000 and 100,000. Insofar as the articles suggest that MEI, as distinguished from MECA, J. C. Penney or W. T. Grant, must submit a plan for correction, etc., those articles are incorrect. D. MELCO. 1. Corporate Relationships, a. Stock Ownership. Both MELCO, a Japanese manufacturing corporation, and Mitsubishi Corporation (a/k/a Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha and hereinafter referred to as “MSK”) are both publicly held companies whose stocks are exchanged on the Tokyo Stock Exchange and other principal Japanese stock exchanges. There is no stock ownership between MELCO and Mitsubishi International Corporation (“MIC”). MELCO has provided the following information about the stock ownership between MELCO and MSK: a. The total number of outstanding shares of MELCO is 1,175,447,-918. b. The highest price of a single share of MELCO stock on the Tokyo Stock Exchange during the calender year 1974 was 155 Yen (U.S. $0.52) and the lowest price was 97 Yen (U.S. $0.32). At present, a single share of MELCO stock trades for approximately 113 Yen (U.S. $0.38). c. The total current value of all outstanding shares of MELCO is 126,948,375,144 Yen (U.S. $423,-161,250). d. MSK owns 19,981,000 shares of MELCO’s stock. Accordingly, the total value of the shares of MELCO stock owned by MSK is 2,124,468,-000 Yen (U.S. $7,081,560). e. The total number of shares outstanding of MSK’s stock is 697,-943,722 shares. f. The highest price of a single share of MSK’s stock on the Tokyo Stock Exchange during the calender year 1974 was 490 Yen (U.S. $1.63) and lowest price was 265 Yen (U.S. $0.88). g. The total current value of all the outstanding shares of MSK’s stock is 222,415,259,426 Yen (U.S. $741,384,198). h. The total amount of shares of MSK’s stock owned by MELCO is 13,671,000 shares. Accordingly, the total value of MELCO’s ownership of MSK’s stock is 4,552,443,000 Yen (U.S. $15,174,810). i. As of December 31, 1974, MELCO owned 2.0% of MSK’s stock and MSK owned 1.71% of MELCO’s stock. j. The respective percentages of ownership in the stock of MELCO and MSK, as described above, have been substantially the same for the years 1964-1974. k. As of September 30, 1974, there were 159,082 shareholders of MELCO’s stock. b. Interlocking Directors and/or Executive Officers. Mr. Ken Okubo, president and managing director of MELCO, was a nominal director of MSK during the period 1964 to May, 1974. In May, 1974, Mr. Okubo resigned his position as a nominal director of MSK and was replaced by Mr. Sadakazu Shindo who is the current president of MELCO and a director of MELCO. Mr. Chujiro Fuino, a managing director of MSK, was also a nominal director of MELCO during the period 1964 through 1974. Other than these two individuals, there are no other directors of MELCO who are also directors of MSK and vice versa. There are no officers of MELCO who are also officers of MSK and vice versa. With respect of MIC, there are neither directors nor officers of MELCO who are also directors or officers of MIC and vice versa. 2. Sales. At oral argument on MELCO’s jurisdictional motion, counsel for MELCO represented that MELCO and MSK are totally independent and unrelated corporations. In response to the Court’s interrogatories, MELCO’s counsel further averred that MELCO had no idea of the transactions that may have occurred between MSK and MIC involving customer electronic products sold in Japan by MELCO to MSK. MELCO has, however, reconstructed records with respect to consumer electronic products sold to MSK which MELCO believes were intended for export to the United States by MIC, the U. S. subsidiary of MSK. Additionally, MELCO has reconstructed records of consumer electronic products sold to U. S. companies other than MIC, said products being imported by the other U. S. companies to the United States. Accordingly, for such sales to these U. S. companies, or to MSK, MELCO has provided the following sales figures for consumer electronic products: BLACK AND WHITE TELEVISION SETS Year No. of Units Value in Dollars 1964 41,846 (U.S. ?) 2.047.000 1965 23,292 1.294.000 1966 22,751 1.264.000 1967 12,150 675,000 1968 18,306 1.017.000 1969 77,094 4.283.000 1970 75,402 4.189.000 1971 78,506 4.618.000 1972 18,636 1.167.000 1973 1,536 77,000 1974 No Record No Record COLOR TELEVISION SETS Year No. of Units Value in Dollars 1970 27,501 (U.S. $) 4.278.000 1971 60,289 11,200,000 1972 39,810 8.597.000 1973 1974 49,786 No Record 9.460.000 No Record With respect to consumer electronic products other than black and white television sets and color television sets, the quantities which may have been imported to the United States are, according to MELCO, de minimis and MELCO does not have any record of these figures. MELCO is unable to determine what portion of the quantities of black and white and color TV sets manufactured by MELCO and imported to the United States were sold in either the State of Pennsylvania or in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 3. Contacts. a. Trademark. MELCO owns the three-diamond logo trademark. Throughout the relevant time period, MELCO licensed the trademark to MIC. MIC sold TV sets manufactured by MELCO under the trade name “MGA” which is not trademarked. Because MIC desired to utilize the trade name “MGA” which MELCO owns, MELCO licensed MIC to utilize the trade name “MGA” in connection with consumer electronic products which MIC purchased from MELCO and imported from Japan. Television sets which MELCO manufactures and sells in Japan are sold in the Japanese market under the “Mitsubishi Electric” trade name only, and not “MGA,” which is the trade name utilized exclusively by MIC in the United States market. Many of the -products sold by MIC which were not manufactured by MELCO also contained the trade name “MGA.” Among such suppliers of MIC other than MELCO, to which MIC affixed the trade name “MGA,” are the following companies: Tensho Denki of Japan; Shodensha of Japan; Technisound of Chicago, Illinois; Lucasey Manufacturing of Oakland, California; Dura-Tube Bending Company of Chicago, Illinois; O’Sullivan Manufacturing Company of Lamar, Missouri ; BSR McDonald Ltd., of Worley, England; and Wells Gardner Electronics of Chicago, Illinois. Upon the organization of MELCO SALES, INC. and MELCO SALES INC.’s acquisition of the MGA Division of MIC, the license to utilize the trade name “MGA” was transferred to MELCO SALES, INC., as of October 1, 1974. With respect to the use of the trade name “MGA” and the three diamond trademark in advertising or publications distributed in Pennsylvania between 1964-1974, because MELCO has no knowledge of the marketing practices of the MGA Division of MIC, MELCO was unable to answer this interrogatory. MELCO believes, however, that some advertising of MIC containing the trade name “MGA” and the three diamond trademark might have found its way into the State of Pennsylvania between 1964-1974 as the MGA Division of MIC was engaged in marketing its products, a substantial number of which were manufactured by MELCO and imported from Japan, throughout the northeast region of the United States. b. Presence in Pennsylvania. In connection with MELCO’s license agreement with Westinghouse Electric Corporation, representatives of MELCO occasionally visit the head office of Westinghouse at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for technical discussions and related matters. MELCO has not retained a record of these visits by its representatives to Pittsburgh during the period 1964-1974 other than technical liaison representatives who remained in Pittsburgh for extended periods of time pursuant to the license agreement. The following list includes all of the technical liaison representatives who have visited Westinghouse’s facilities at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in connection with the aforesaid license agreement during the period 1964-1974. After each year is set forth the individual’s name and his particular engineering designation: 1964: Keizo Takagi (Communications Engineer) 1965: Toshiya Shiraoka (Communications Engineer) 1966: Toshiya Shiraoka (Communications Engineer) Sanpei Kameyama (Switchgear Engineer) Masatoshi Kawasaki (Assistant Engineer) 1967: Sanpei Kameyama (Switchgear Engineer) Masatoshi Kawasaki (Assistant Engineer) 1968: Hiroshi Yokohama (Control Board Engineer) Shiichi Hirose (Assistant Engineer) 1969: Hiroshi Yokohama (Control Board Engineer) Shiichi Hirose (Assistant Engineer) Takeshi Mori (Relay Engineer) 1970: Takeshi Mori (Relay Engineer) Tatsuo Torii (Assistant Engineer) 1971: Shigeo Aida (Railway Engineer) 1972: Shigeo Aida (Railway Engineer) Masao Nogami (Manufacturing Engineer) Shiichi Ibuki (Assistant Engineer) Gai Kobayashi (Rectifier Engineer) 1973: Masao Nogami (Manufacturing Engineer) Shiichi Ibuki (Assistant Engineer) Gai Kobayashi (Rectifier Engineer) 1974: Masao Nogami (Manufacturing Engineer) Shiichi Ibuki (Assistant Engineer) Gai Kobayashi (Rectifier Engineer) c. Agreements. MELCO entered into a license agreement with Westinghouse Electric Corporation which is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The agreement in question, dated April 1, 1966, remained in effect through 1974. E. Sharp Corporation 1. Corporate Relationships. a. Stock Ownership. Sharp owned 100 percent of the stock of Sharp Electronics Corporation (SEC), its American subsidiary. b. Interlocking Directors and/or Executive Officers. Mr. T. Hayakawa was president of Sharp from 1965 to 1970, and chairman of Sharp’s board from 1970 to 1974. He was also chairman of SEC from 1965 to 1971. Mr. A. Saeki was executive director of Sharp from 1965 to 1974, and president of Sharp from 1970 to 1974. He was a director of SEC from 1965 to 1974, and SEC’s president from 1965 to 1971. Mr. K. Saitoh was a director of Sharp from 1970 to 1974. He was a director of SEC from 1965 to 1974, executive vice president of SEC from 1966 to 1971, and president of SEC from 1972 to 1974. Mr. M. Furubayu was executive director of Sharp from 1965 to 1970. He was a director of SEC from 1965 to 1971, and vice president of SEC during the same years. 2. Sales. Like MEI, MEC and MECA, Sharp and SEC have requested that their sales data be kept confidential. Again, I see no need for such a request, but I will honor it. The data will be impounded and will be available for review by an appellate court. It suffices to say that both corporations have made substantial sales of goods, either for export to the United States (in Sharp’s case), or in the United States itself (in SEC’s case). For the period 1965-1974, Sharp’s annual sales of such goods ranged from roughly 1% billion Yen in value to almost 34 billion Yen in value. During the same time, SEC’s annual sales ranged in value from roughly $5,000,000 to roughly $93,000,000. Approximately 4% of SEC’s dollar sales figures represent sales in Pennsylvania, and approximately 2% of those figures represent sales in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 3. Contacts. a. Trademarks. SEC has used trademarks owned by Sharp in advertisements, publications and brochures in connection with the sale of goods by SEC. SEC has distributed such advertisements, publications and brochures continuously in Pennsylvania throughout the period of 1965-1974. An exact list of the publications and brochures with dates is presently unavailable, advertisements appeared in national except that throughout this period advertisements appeared in national trade publications such as Home Furnishings Daily, and other national publications such as Time, Fortune and Good Housekeeping magazines. b. Presence in Pennsylvania. During the period 1965-1974, SEC had no.employees who resided and worked in Pennsylvania. However, in that same period of time, employees of SEC visited Pennsylvania on a regular basis. Such visits were made in order to contact persons, firms and corporations who either engaged in purchasing products offered for sale by SEC or who were potential purchasers of such products, and in order to attend trade shows. The purpose was to promote SEC’s products, to advise concerning after-sales service, to solicit orders for SEC’s products, and to attend to collection of SEC’s accounts receivable from customers. During the period from 1965-1974 Sharp had no employees who resided and worked in Pennsylvania. However, in that same period two employees of Sharp visited Pennsylvania. In 1973, Mr. T. Sasaki spent two days in Pennsylvania and met with a Mr. Kopp of AMP Incorporated for the purpose of discussing an exchange of technology. In 1974, Mr. T. Ebiike spent two days in Pennsylvania and visited with Fogel Commercial Refrigerator Company in Pennsylvania concerning possible importation into Japan of that company’s products. c. Agreements. SEC has had numerous agreements from 1965-1974 with businesses located in Pennsylvania concerning distribution and service of its products. Many such agreements continue in effect, while others have terminated from time to time during the period 1965-1974. Sharp has no agreements with Pennsylvania businesses. Sharp does not have knowledge as to whether corporations with whom it has agreements have any facilities in Pennsylvania except: (1) plaintiff has represented on the record herein that Zenith, with whom Sharp has a license agreement which is a part of the record in this action, had a facility in Pennsylvania; and (2) AMP, Inc., a New Jersey corporation with which Sharp has an agreement relating to technology, has a facility in Pennsylvania. III. DEPENDANTS’ RESPONSES IN THE NUE ACTION AS ADOPTED BY THE COURT. A. HITACHI KADEN. 1. Corporate Relationships for 1965-1970. In answer to these interrogatories of the Court, Kaden adopted its joint response with Limited in the Zenith case without change. For that response, see supra, at 5-8. 2. Sales. In answer to these interrogatories as well, Kaden adopted its joint response with Limited in the Zenith case without change. For that response, see supra, at 8-9. 3. Contacts. a. Trademark. Advertisements, publications and brochures in which the “Hitachi” trademark or logo was used have been distributed in New Jersey. Kaden did not place any of these. Limited has placed institutional-type advertising which has circulated in New Jersey (see earlier response), but has not advertised in local New Jersey publications. HSCA and HAL have placed locally circulated advertisements and brochures bearing the “Hitachi” trademark or logo. b. Presence in New Jersey for 1965-1970. Three Kaden employees visited New Jersey during the relevant time period. All of their visits took place in 1970. Mr. H. Takakua, manager, First Export Department, visited New Jersey to discuss the sale of radios to Nissan Motors and to NUE. Mr. M. Misu, assistant manager, First Export Department, visited New Jersey to discuss the sale of radios „to RCA Corporation. And Mr. M. Watanabe, of the First Export Department, also visited New Jersey to discuss radio sales to RCA. c. Agreements. Kaden has not, to its knowledge, entered into any agreements with a corporation having business facilities located in New Jersey. B. MELCO. 1. Corporate Relationships. a. Stock Ownership. During the years 1965-1970, MELCO owned approximately 2.0 percent of MSK’s stock, and MSK owned 1.71 percent of MELCO’s stock. There was no stock ownership between MELCO and MIC. b. Interlocking Directors and/or Executive Officers. Mr. Ken Okubo, president and managing director of MELCO was a director of MSK during the years 1965-1970. Mr. Chujiro Fujino, a managing director of MSK, was a director of MELCO during the years 1965-1970. There was no corporate interlock between MELCO and MIC during 1965-1970. 2. Sales. MELCO p