called Checkmate is either insincere or guileful, or both, since the duration of jurisdictional discovery has to do in large part with its own objections. This is what is so troubling about TatungTaiwan’s latest tactic. The instant Motion appears to be a backhanded attempt to make it seem as if this Court left Tatung-Taiwan with no choice but to scuttle its personal jurisdiction defense so that it can escape jurisdictional depositions and, if it comes to an appeal, reassert the defense at that point — a point in the litigation when Safer Display would be unable to prove personal jurisdiction with certainty because jurisdictional discovery would have ceased before the issue was resolved with certitude. See IDS Life Ins. Co. v. SunAmerica Life Ins. Co., 136 F.3d 537, 540 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Indeed, as explained above,
holding that a dismissal based on a jurisdictional statute of limitations does not constitute a judgmerit on the merits because a judgment on the merits can only be rendered after a court has jurisdiction holding that despite the merits of the argument the appellant raised on appeal the issue was not preserved for judicial review because it was not raised before the administrative agency holding that if a motion implicates the merits of a cause of action the district court should find jurisdiction exists and treat the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiffs case holding that a delay in challenging personal jurisdiction may result in waiver holding that participating in the litigation on the merits does not result in a waiver of personal jurisdiction when the participation comes at the direction of the district judge after having raised the defense in a timely fashion