the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied. ‘[S]ervice of summons is the procedure by which a court having venue and jurisdiction of the sub ject matter of the suit asserts jurisdiction over the person of the party served.’ Id. (quoting Omni Capital Int’l v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104, 108 S.Ct. 404, 98 L.Ed.2d 415 (1987) (quoting Mississippi Publ’g Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 444-45, 66 S.Ct. 242, 90 L.Ed. 185 (1946))). According to the Harding court, “It follows, then, that previously unperfected personal jurisdiction does not attach in a transferee district court until a summons issued by that court is properly served.” Id. quoted in Hansan v. Fairfax Cnty. Pub. School Bd., No. 1:09CV558(GBL), 2010 WL 1779679, *2-3 (E.D.Va. Apr. 30, 2010) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, although Harding is an unpublished
holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant where defendant assignee received patents from assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction in part because the unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum state holding minimum contacts were necessary for personal jurisdiction over defendant holding that a district court may assert personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant to the extent permissible under the law of the state in which the district court sits holding that the plaintiffs attempts to serve defendant were not effective under rule 4m because the district court of maryland did not have personal jurisdiction over defendant holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction