Trade Show Appearances Do Not Establish Personal Jurisdiction

Posted on | April 2, 2008 | No Comments

2008-1279 Synthes (USA) V GM Dos Reis
SD/CA 07-cv-309

Synthes appeals from Judge James Lorenz order dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.  Synthes sued GMReis, a Brazilian company, on 7,127,744, related to locking bone plates for surgical and skeletal fixation.  Synthes argued jurisdiction existed due to (1) various commercial contacts (apparently not related to the accused device) in the U.S., and (2) GMReis appearance at various medical trade shows at which the accused device was shown.

The court disagreed, finding the contacts did not rise to a level of contacts to support either general or specific jurisdiction.  The unrelated commercial contacts were readily dismissed.  As for the trade shows, the unrebutted evidence showed that the devices were clearly not offered for sale in the U.S., and not offered for sale to U.S. purchasers (the trade shows are global in scope and are attended by many non-U.S. people).  Moreover, the devices are not FDA approved and could not be medically used in the U.S.

Synthes tried to argue that Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) created jurisdiction because GMReis was not amenable to a federal claim (patent infringement) in any state.  This provision states:

(2) Federal Claim Outside State-Court Jurisdiction.

For a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a waiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if:

(A) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction; and

(B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.

Judge Lorenz noted, however, that 4(k)(2)(d) requires an analysis identical to the normal due process analysis except, instead of considering contacts with a particular forum state, contacts are considered with the nation as a whole.  See Holland Am. Line.  The court reaffirmed that the contacts previously identified were not sufficient to meet minimum due process requirements.

The court declined, however, to rule that having the device at the trade shows was not an act of infringement.  However, it seems like this would have to be implied by the court’s ruling: otherwise, the court would be ruling that one could come into the U.S. and infringe but those acts of infringement would not constitute specific jurisdiction.

Comments