The reasonableness inquiry is not limited to facts specific to the dispute, and once minimum contacts with the forum are shown, a defendant “must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985). As part of its reasonableness inquiry, the Federal Circuit evaluated five considerations: [C]ourts in “appropriate case[s]” may evaluate [1] “the burden on the defendant,” [2] “the forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute,” [3] “the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief,” [4] “the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies,” and [5] the “shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.”
30 F.4th 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2022).BackgroundApplying one of the Supreme Court’s seminal jurisdiction cases, Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-73 (1985), the Federal Circuit’s decision in Apple v. Zipit reinforces a shift in the case law away from a bright-line rule that cease-and-desist letters may not provide a basis for finding that the party sending the letters has sufficient minimum contracts to establish personal jurisdiction in the alleged infringer’s home state. After first finding that a nonresident defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum state, courts apply the Burger King factors to assess whether the assertion of personal jurisdiction comports with “fair play and substantial justice.”
5See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014).6See World-wide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980); see also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472-473 (1985).7See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985).
As to the remaining “reasonable and fair” prong of the in personam jurisdiction inquiry, the court observed that if the defendant had the required minimum contacts with the forum, a court should consider other factors, including circumstances beyond those relevant to the minimum contacts, such as the burden on the defendant, the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient relief, the judicial system’s interest in the most efficient resolution of the controversy, and the states’ interest in furthering fundamental substantive social policies. Id. at 12-13 (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 477 (1985)). Moreover, the court noted that where the necessary minimum contacts exist, there is a presumption that in personam jurisdiction over the defendant is reasonable, and the defendant has the burden of presenting a compelling case to the contrary.
The Court held “Once minimum contacts are established, jurisdiction over a defendant is presumptively reasonable, and the burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate a ‘compelling case’ as to why the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” Order at 11, citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewiez, 471 U.S. 462, 476-77 (1985).However, “'so long as [a defendant] creates a substantial connection with the forum, even a single act can support jurisdiction.’”Id., quoting Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
The Court held “Once minimum contacts are established, jurisdiction over a defendant is presumptively reasonable, and the burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate a ‘compelling case’ as to why the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.” Order at11, citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewiez, 471 U.S. 462, 476-77 (1985). However, “'so long as [a defendant] creates a substantial connection with the forum, even a single act can support jurisdiction.’
California, County of Los AngelesPlaintiffs Samson Bareh and Gen Bareh filed this matter, alleging Samson developed mesothelioma from exposure toasbestos. Defendant Aftermarket Auto Parts Alliance Inc. filed the within motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction.The plaintiff had made no specific allegations against Aftermarket, and the complaint alleged nothing about Aftermarket, except to name it as a defendant.A defendant may move to quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(1). The court may dismiss without prejudice the complaint in whole, or as to that defendant, when dismissal is pursuant toSection 418.10. Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (h).“The Due Process Clause protects an individual’s liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful ‘contacts, ties, or relations.'” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 471-472. A state court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a party under circumstances that would offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd., v. Superior Court of California, Solano County (1987) 480 U.S. 102, 113.When a defendant moves to quash service of process on jurisdictional grounds, the plaintiff has the initial burden of demonstrating facts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction. Jayone Foods, Inc. v. Aekyung Industrial Co. Ltd. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 543, 553. Once facts showing minimum contacts with the forum state are established, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable.Ibid.Here, general jurisdiction over Aftermarket was not in dispute.Regarding specific jurisdiction, Aftermarket did not deny contact with California. Rather, it argued the plaintiffs “must show that his claims arise out of the supply of a particular Aftermarket product [in]California, not mere
be used to serve process in such court proceedings.Does the filing of a trademark application, opposition proceeding, or cancellation proceeding confer personal jurisdiction on the foreign applicant in a court proceeding? The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not answer this question. However, there are numerous court cases that hold service under the Lanham Act does not establish personal jurisdiction over a foreign applicant and that it is necessary to show that the foreign applicant had substantial contacts with the U.S. to justify jurisdiction. There are also cases on both sides of the issue where courts have held that trademark registrations related to the underlying controversy are sufficient to establish specific or personal jurisdiction. This is consistent with Supreme Court precedent providing that specific jurisdiction is present where “the litigation results from alleged injuries that ‘arise out of or relate to’” the defendant’s activities. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985) (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U. S. 408, 414 (1984)) (emphasis added).Some courts across the country—including those within the Seventh Circuit—have considered and rejected the argument that filing a trademark application, obtaining a trademark registration, or opposing a trademark registration are “suit-related” contacts sufficient to confer specific or personal jurisdiction in trademark cases because such actions are not acts of alleged trademark infringement. In an earlier decision in Haemoscope Corp. v. Pentapharm AG, 2002 WL 31749195, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 9, 2002), the court determined that specific jurisdiction did not exist over the foreign defendant because, despite its contacts with the U.S. which included owning trademark registrations, the plaintiff’s trademark infringement suit did not arise from those contacts; nor did the suit arise from the application to register the disputed trademark. Instead, the suit arose out of alleged misuses o
firm oversight mechanisms.New software must look better, work better, be more intuitive both for efficiency and for Renewed emphasis on mental health will prompt the redesign of office illumination, office furniture, and office attire.Right now, many large law firms accept cryptocurrency as payment to satisfy their cryptocurrency clients. Soon, all firms will need to accept cryptocurrency as payment and will have to redesign their payment portal.To make contracts more cost-efficient, the whole process will become more collaborative. Contract language will be simpler, interests and expectations more clearly defined, structure less convoluted, negotiation more forthright.The speed of innovation will prompt a redesign of research and development departments and methodologies.Civil Procedure ReckoningWhile we may never formally say goodbye to International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), Helicopteros Nacionales v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (1984), and Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), remote proceedings will force everyone to rethink the tenets of Civil Procedure. What is jurisdiction if it doesn’t matter where we are? What gets ticketed and who gets selected for remote proceedings? What exactly is this information we are exchanging? Are case outcome predictions from Artificial Intelligence mechanisms really attorney work product? What is the role of a mediator in a world run by algorithms?Civil cases, which took a backseat to criminal case during the pandemic, resulted in a backlog of civil cases and courts will need to eliminate that backlog.We have examined how the possibility of remote participation in hearings changes the way courts evaluate the burdens and benefits associated with discovery disputes and class actions.The Learning Curve with Which Law Firms Learn to Embrace Technology Gets SteeperPrompted and/or inspired by Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton’s Cleary X and Shearman & Sterling’s Legal Operations by Sterling, new arms of centuries old firms launc
The Court acknowledged that GameDay’s contract with a North Carolina-based company did not “automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 478 (1985). Instead, it focused on an analysis which also included “prior negotiations and contemplated future consequences” as well as “the parties’ actual course of dealing.”