Background - Plaintiffs Axiom Foods (California) and Growing Naturals (Arizona) own U.S.-registered copyrights in two logos used on food products and do business in California. - Defendant Acerchem UK, a U.K. company and subsidiary of Acerchem International (China), does no business in the U.S.; an Acerchem UK employee emailed a November 20, 2014 newsletter using Plaintiffs’ “As Good As Whey” and “Non‑GMO” logos to 343 addresses (mostly in Western Europe); up to 10 recipients were in California. - Plaintiffs sued for copyright infringement in the Central District of California after their registrations became effective; Acerchem UK moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. - After jurisdictional discovery, the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether specific jurisdiction existed, applying the purposeful‑direction (Calder/"effects") test and considering Walden v. Fiore’s limitation on using a plaintiff’s forum contacts. - Plaintiffs argued Acerchem UK expressly aimed its conduct at California (individualized targeting) because it knew Plaintiffs’ forum connections and used Plaintiffs’ copyrighted logos; Acerchem UK argued its contacts with California (a single newsletter with few CA recipients) were insufficient. - The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal: Acerchem UK’s conduct did not create a substantial connection to California, individualized targeting alone (post‑Walden) is inadequate, and Rule 4(k)(2) also did not authorize jurisdiction. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---| | Whether Acerchem UK committed an intentional act supporting purposeful direction | Adding logos and sending the newsletter was an intentional act aimed at Plaintiffs | Act was intentional but not targeted at California | Intentional act satisfied, but alone insufficient for jurisdiction | | Whether Acerchem UK expressly aimed conduct at California (express‑aiming/individualized targeting) | Acerchem UK knew Plaintiffs’ forum connections and copyrights, so it targeted a known forum resident | Defendant’s contacts were with recipients, not with California itself; knowledge of plaintiff’s forum ties is insufficient post‑Walden | Express aiming not shown; individualized targeting cannot alone satisfy Walden’s defendant‑focused test | | Whether the newsletter created substantial U.S./California contacts (including under Rule 4(k)(2)) | Sending newsletter to numerous U.S. and CA addresses created national and California contacts | Most recipients were in Europe; at most 10 in CA and scant U.S. contacts—too attenuated | Contacts were scant, isolated, and attenuated; jurisdiction under CA or Rule 4(k)(2) denied | | Whether parent/subsidiary contacts can be imputed (agency or alter‑ego) | Plaintiffs suggested parent’s contacts might be attributed to Acerchem UK | No prima facie showing of agency or alter ego; entities treated separately | Contacts of Acerchem International not imputed to Acerchem UK; no basis to attribute forum contacts | ### Key Cases Cited Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) (jurisdictional inquiry must focus on defendant’s own contacts with the forum, not defendant’s knowledge of plaintiff’s forum connections) Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (effects test: intentional act expressly aimed at forum causing harm known to be suffered there) Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts and due process standard for jurisdiction) Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (contacts must be defendant‑created; purposeful availment/foreseeability limits) Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (burden on defendant and limits on exercising jurisdiction over nonresident defendants) Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (three‑part specific jurisdiction test for torts: purposeful direction/availment, relation of claim to contacts, and reasonableness)