activity other than making the allegedly infringing sales. Additionally, the claims against MCSC are peripheral to the central issues of the action. See L.G. Elecs., 131 F.Supp.2d at 812. Specifically, the Kohs seek a declaratory judgment that the ImageDeck infringes the ’830 patent and an injunction prohibiting the manufacture, use, sale, offers to sell, and importation in derogation of the Kohs’s rights under the ’830 patent. “Ultimately the infringement claim[s] against the manufacturer” and the sole importer are “more likely to restore contested property rights nationwide than securing an injunction enjoining a merchant from selling infringing products from existing inventory.” Id. As a result, MCSC is only peripherally involved in this action. See LG Elecs., 131 F.Supp.2d at 811 (<HOLDING>); Corry, 16 F.Supp.2d at 665 (holding that a
holding that a breach of contract claim against one defendant related back to interference with contract claim against that defendant and breach of contract claim against second defendant because it was based on same set of operative facts holding on policy grounds that a strict liability claim should not lie against drug manufacturer holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement holding that a patent infringement claim against a reseller of infringing products is only peripherally related to a claim against the manufacturer holding that the adjudication of claims against an infringing products manufacturer would resolve claims against a mere reseller