Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems, LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc.
751 F.3d 796
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Advanced Tactical manufactures PepperBall brand irritant projectiles; its headquarters are in Indiana with at least one California office.
- Real Action Paintball, Inc. (California) announced it acquired PepperBall personnel, machinery, and materials, suggesting it could be the sole PepperBall irritant projectile producer after PepperBall Technologies’ foreclosure.
- Advanced Tactical filed suit in Indiana federal court asserting Lanham Act and common-law claims, alleging Real Action’s conduct infringed its marks and harmed Indiana interests.
- The district court held a evidentiary hearing and found personal jurisdiction proper, granting a preliminary injunction; Real Action appealed.
- The Seventh Circuit vacates the injunction and dismisses for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding Real Action lacked the minimum contacts with Indiana required by due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had specific personal jurisdiction over Real Action. | Advanced Tactical asserts Indiana-specific contacts via orders fulfilled, foreseeability of harm, email blasts, interactive website, and Indiana sales. | Real Action contends insufficient litigation-related contacts; mere foreseeability or out-of-forum effects do not establish minimum contacts. | No specific jurisdiction; dismiss. |
| Whether Real Action’s online activities and emails create minimum contacts with Indiana. | Emails to Indiana residents and an interactive site show purposeful exploitation of Indiana market. | Online activity and emails are insufficient by themselves to establish forum-specific contact. | Not enough to satisfy due process. |
| Whether the district court’s reliance on interactivity of the website supports personal jurisdiction. | Website interactivity alleged to facilitate sales and awareness in Indiana. | Interactivity is an insufficient proxy for minimum contacts; need defendant-created, litigation-specific connections. | Interactivity alone does not establish jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (establishes minimum contacts standard for due process)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (limits on in-forum effects; must arise from defendant’s contacts with forum)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (general vs. specific jurisdiction; general jurisdiction only where at home)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (needed nexus between defendant’s forum contacts and dispute)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (forum state rights not automatically triggered by tortious act anywhere)
- Indianapolis Colts, Inc. v. Metro. Balt. Football Club Ltd. P'ship, 34 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 1994) (preliminary injunction and jurisdiction discussed in similar posture)
- be2 LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2011) (online contacts; minimal contacts analysis in internet context)
- Illinois v. Hemi Grp. LLC, 622 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2010) (internet-related contacts guidance)
- Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2010) (online contacts and jurisdiction principles)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (reiterates forum-related must come from defendant’s own conduct)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (jurisdiction cannot be based on fortuitous connections)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (limits on general jurisdiction; home-state concept)
- Janmark, Inc. v. Reidy, 132 F.3d 1200 (7th Cir. 1997) (state where victim injured may entertain suit, tension with Walden)