Plixer International, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GMBH
905 F.3d 1
| 1st Cir. | 2018Background
- Scrutinizer GmbH is a German company that offers a globally accessible, English-language cloud code-analysis service sold online; payments were in euros and standard contracts contained German forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses.
- From Jan 2014–June 2017 Scrutinizer sold services to 156 U.S. customers across 30 states, earning ≈€165,212 (just under $200,000); two Maine customers paid €3,100.
- Plixer International, a Maine corporation and prior U.S. registrant of the mark SCRUTINIZER, sued Scrutinizer in Maine federal court for trademark infringement.
- Plixer invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) to assert specific personal jurisdiction based on Scrutinizer’s nationwide U.S. contacts; the district court found a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.
- Scrutinizer appealed, contesting the aggregation of nationwide contacts and arguing it did not purposefully avail itself of the U.S. forum; the First Circuit affirmed, holding jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) consistent with Fifth Amendment due process on these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 4(k)(2) personal jurisdiction over Scrutinizer comports with Fifth Amendment due process | Plixer: Scrutinizer’s interactive website, recurring U.S. sales, and knowledge of U.S. customers show purposeful availment and reasonableness | Scrutinizer: Contacts are merely website accessibility/stream‑of‑commerce or unilateral acts of U.S. customers; aggregation of nationwide contacts is improper; no specific targeting of U.S. | Court: Held Plixer met relatedness, purposeful availment, and reasonableness; jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) constitutional on these facts |
| Whether post‑filing U.S. trademark application affects jurisdictional analysis | Plixer: The application reinforces intent to deal with U.S. market | Scrutinizer: Post‑suit contact should be disregarded | Court: Considered the application as confirmatory but not dispositive; it did not tip the scales |
| Whether running an interactive website alone suffices for purposeful availment | Plixer: Website plus recurring sales and active servicing of U.S. customers suffices | Scrutinizer: Mere website availability does not create jurisdiction | Court: Mere availability is insufficient, but here website-driven, regular, deliberate U.S. sales support purposeful availment |
| Whether foreign‑defendant burdens render jurisdiction unreasonable | Plixer: U.S. has strong interest; plaintiff needs relief in U.S.; judicial efficiency favors jurisdiction | Scrutinizer: Cross‑Atlantic burdens and foreignness weigh against reasonableness | Court: While foreignness is a factor, Scrutinizer’s substantial U.S. business reduces weight of burden; gestalt factors do not render jurisdiction unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (establishes minimum contacts due‑process standard)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (stream‑of‑commerce and foreseeability principles)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment and reasonableness factors)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, 465 U.S. 770 (nationwide circulation and expectation of suit in forum)
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (plurality/concurring views on targeting and jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (limits on attributing defendant contacts via plaintiff’s forum connections)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (plurality and concurrences on stream‑of‑commerce and reasonableness)
- C.W. Downer & Co. v. Bioriginal Food & Sci. Corp., 771 F.3d 59 (First Circuit standard for prima facie jurisdictional showing)
- A Corp. v. All Am. Plumbing, Inc., 812 F.3d 54 (First Circuit guidance on online contacts and website interactivity)
- Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd. v. [United States] (Swiss II), 274 F.3d 610 (First Circuit interpreting Rule 4(k)(2) and Fifth Amendment limits)