Plixer Int'l, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GmbH

79 Citing cases

  1. Slyce Acquisition Inc. v. Syte - Visual Conception Ltd.

    422 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (W.D. Tex. 2019)   Cited 11 times
    Involving personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant that sold its software to a third party, who bundled the software into an app and sold it in the U.S.; court cited Plixer in noting federal courts continue to analyze personal jurisdiction under a "stream-of-commerce" theory

    Circuit Courts have also continued to analyze personal jurisdiction under this theory. See, e.g. , Plixer Int'l, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GmbH , 905 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2018) ; In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Prod. Litig. , 888 F.3d 753, 778–81 (5th Cir. 2018) ; see alsoShuker v. Smith & Nephew , PLC, 885 F.3d 760, 780 (3d Cir. 2018) (approving of Justice O'Connor's purposeful availment stream of commerce theory). Kohl's makes the following statements: "There is no third ‘stream of commerce’ basis for personal jurisdiction."

  2. Semcon IP Inc. v. TCT Mobile Int'l Ltd.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-00194-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jul. 1, 2019)   Cited 7 times
    Involving a smartphone manufacturer and mentioning Plixer in passing with regard to "the stream of commerce theory"

    While the Federal Circuit has not addressed the stream of commerce theory since the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers, other Courts of Appeal have continued to apply the theory. See, e.g., Plixer Int'l, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GmbH, 905 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2018); In re DePuyOrthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Prod. Litig., 888 F.3d 753, 778-81 (5th Cir. 2018); see also Shuker v. Smith & Nephew, PLC, 885 F.3d 760, 780 (3d Cir. 2018) (approving of Justice O'Connor's purposeful availment stream of commerce theory). Absent a clear statement to the contrary from the Supreme Court or the Federal Circuit, this Court will continue to apply the existing stream of commerce jurisprudence.

  3. Knox v. Metalforming, Inc.

    914 F.3d 685 (1st Cir. 2019)   Cited 53 times
    Holding that regular course of sales, without more, is insufficient to establish jurisdiction

    The Knoxes and MetalForming have asserted specific personal jurisdiction over Schechtl, so the constitutional analysis here has three components: relatedness, purposeful availment, and reasonableness. Plixer Int'l, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GmbH, 905 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2018). That is, the plaintiffs must show that (1) their claims directly arise out of or relate to the defendant's forum activities; (2) the defendant's forum contacts represent a purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in that forum, thus invoking the benefits and protections of the forum's laws and rendering the defendant's involuntary presence in the forum's courts foreseeable; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable.

  4. Rodriguez-Rivera v. Allscripts HealthCare Sols.

    No. 20-1936 (1st Cir. Aug. 5, 2022)

    Ford Motor, 141 S.Ct. at 1025 (cleaned up) (quoting Waldenv.Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014)). In addition to a defendant's specific attempts to target the forum state, see Plixer Int'l, Inc.v.Scrutinizer GmbH, 905 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2018), a defendant's "'regular flow or regular course of sales' in the [forum]" can demonstrate purposeful availment, too, id. at 10. Although the mere placement of a product into the stream of commerce with the awareness that it could end up in a forum state, without more, is not enough to show purposeful availment, "[a]dditional conduct of the defendant may indicate an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum State."

  5. Rodríguez-Rivera v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.

    43 F.4th 150 (1st Cir. 2022)   Cited 35 times
    Finding abuse of district court's discretion in striking entire affidavit proffered to oppose motion to compel arbitration

    Ford Motor, 141 S. Ct. at 1025 (cleaned up) (quoting Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014) ). In addition to a defendant's specific attempts to target the forum state, see Plixer Int'l, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GmbH, 905 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2018), a defendant's " ‘regular flow or regular course of sales’ in the [forum]" can demonstrate purposeful availment, too, id. at 10. Although the mere placement of a product into the stream of commerce with the awareness that it could end up in a forum state, without more, is not enough to show purposeful availment, "[a]dditional conduct of the defendant may indicate an intent or purpose to serve the market in the forum State."

  6. Chen v. U.S. Sports Acad., Inc.

    956 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2020)   Cited 77 times
    Concluding that defendant "cannot be subjected to specific jurisdiction in Massachusetts based on its maintenance of an online learning platform accessible in (and allegedly accessed by [plaintiff] from) the Commonwealth."

    Given these criteria, a finding of purposeful availment necessarily requires more than the unilateral activities of third parties. See Plixer Int'l, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GmbH, 905 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2018) ; see also PREP Tours, 913 F.3d at 20 ("[A] plaintiff's ‘unilateral activity’ cannot establish the requisite connection between the defendants and the forum jurisdiction." (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 474-75, 105 S.Ct. 2174 )).

  7. Stokinger v. Armslist, LLC

    23-cv-428-PB-TSM (D.N.H. Jul. 15, 2024)

    “definitively answer[] how a defendant's online activities translate into contacts” for the purposes of personal jurisdiction, Plixer Int'l, Inc. v.Scrutinizer GmbH, 905 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2018). Despite the limited guidance on the matter, “[o]ne baseline principle has emerged: a website operator does not necessarily purposefully avail itself of the benefits and protections of every state in which its website is accessible.” Plixer, 905 F.3d at 8 (collecting cases).

  8. Franks v. CooperSurgical, Inc.

    C. A. 22-046 WES (D.R.I. Mar. 14, 2024)

    In other words, defendants, including those that are foreign, must “reasonably anticipate being haled into [the forum] court.” Id. at 474 (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., 444 U.S. at 297); Plixer Int'l, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GmbH, 905 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2018) (noting that the purposeful availment requirement applies to foreign defendants).

  9. SEBO Am. v. Red Vacuums LLC

    Civil Action 23-cv-0116-WJM-SBP (D. Colo. Mar. 6, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    ) PopSockets in turn cites Otter Products, LLC v. Big Birds, LLC, No. 19-0626, ECF No. 39, at *3 (D. Colo. Aug. 9, 2019) [hereinafter Otter I], which relied on Plixer International, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GmbH, 905 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2018). These authorities make clear that what determines whether contacts created by a plaintiff or its counsel is the intent behind those connections.

  10. AMB Media, LLC v. ONEMB, LLC

    No. 23-5607 (6th Cir. May. 8, 2024)   Cited 7 times

    Other circuits have offered similar reasoning. See Plixer Int'l, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GmbH, 905 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2018) (finding that "voluntary service of the U.S. market" coupled with "not insubstantial income" from that market constituted purposeful availment); Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158, 171 (2d Cir. 2010) (finding that "by offering bags for sale to New York consumers on [a] . . . website and by selling bags . . . to New York consumers," the defendant "purposefully avail[ed] [him]self of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws" (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 475)). Use of an interactive website to sell products into a forum creates jurisdiction not because of any internet-specific rules, but because that course of conduct pairs a willingness to sell into the forum with regular sales-features that have long constituted purposeful availment.