ILNews

Indiana doesn’t have jurisdiction in IP suit, rules 7th Circuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a District judge to dismiss a case filed by a company with California ties against another California company alleging various IP violations. The judges found Indiana does not have personal jurisdiction over the matter based on emails the allegedly offending company sent.

Advanced Tactical, which manufactures and sells PepperBall branded items, filed its lawsuit against Real Action Paintball Inc. in the Northern District of Indiana, alleging violations of the Lanham Act, common law trademark infringement and unfair competition, trade dress infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets. The lawsuit stems from an email Real Action sent out in 2012 and a message on its website that announced it had acquired the machinery, recipes and materials once used by PepperBall Technologies Inc. But Advanced Tactical had acquired PepperBall Technologies after the business went into foreclosure.

Advanced Tactical claims to have a headquarters in Indiana, but that is unclear, according to the court record. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the District judge concluded the court had personal jurisdiction and that Advanced Tactical was entitled to a preliminary injunction.

The District Court found the necessary minimum contacts based on the following: Real Action fulfilled several orders of the allegedly infringing projectiles for purchasers in Indiana; it knew Advanced Tactical was an Indiana company and could foresee that the misleading emails and sales would harm Advanced Tactical in Indiana; it sent at least two misleading email blasts to a list that included Indiana residents; it had an interactive website available to residents of Indiana; and it put customers on their email list when they made a purchase, thereby giving the company some economic advantage.

But in Advanced Tactical Ordinance Systems Inc. v. Real Action Paintball Inc. and K.T. Tran, 13-3005,  the 7th Circuit found none of these meets the standards the Supreme Court of the United States has set governing specific jurisdiction.

“Specific jurisdiction must rest on the litigation-specific conduct of the defendant in the proposed forum state. The only sales that would be relevant are those that were related to Real Action’s allegedly unlawful activity. Advanced Technical – which has the burden of proof here – has not provided evidence of such sales,” Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote.

“To hold otherwise would mean that a plaintiff could bring suit in literally any state where the defendant shipped at least one item,” she continued.

The act that Real Action maintains an email list to allow it to shower past customers and subscribers with company-related emails doesn’t show a relation between the company and Indiana, the 7th Circuit ruled. “The connection between the place where an email is opened and a lawsuit is entirely fortuitous.”

The judges also found the interactivity of a website is a poor proxy for adequate in-state contacts. The case is remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Put aside all the marijuana concerns, we are talking about food and fiber uses here. The federal impediments to hemp cultivation are totally ridiculous. Preposterous. Biggest hemp cultivators are China and Europe. We get most of ours from Canada. Hemp is as versatile as any crop ever including corn and soy. It's good the governor laid the way for this, regrettable the buffoons in DC stand in the way. A statutory relic of the failed "war on drugs"

  2. Cannabis is GOOD for our PEOPLE and GOOD for our STATE... 78% would like to see legal access to the product line for better Hoosier Heath. There is a 25% drop in PAIN KILLER Overdoses in states where CANNABIS is legal.

  3. This article is excellent and should be required reading for all attorneys and would-be attorneys, regardless of age or experience. I've caught myself committing several of the errors mentioned.

  4. Bill Satterlee is, indeed, a true jazz aficionado. Part of my legal career was spent as an associate attorney with Hoeppner, Wagner & Evans in Valparaiso. Bill was instrumental (no pun intended) in introducing me to jazz music, thereby fostering my love for this genre. We would, occasionally, travel to Chicago on weekends and sit in on some outstanding jazz sessions at Andy's on Hubbard Street. Had it not been for Bill's love of jazz music, I never would have had the good fortune of hearing it played live at Andy's. And, most likely, I might never have begun listening to it as much as I do. Thanks, Bill.

  5. The child support award is many times what the custodial parent earns, and exceeds the actual costs of providing for the children's needs. My fiance and I have agreed that if we divorce, that the children will be provided for using a shared checking account like this one(http://www.mediate.com/articles/if_they_can_do_parenting_plans.cfm) to avoid the hidden alimony in Indiana's child support guidelines.

ADVERTISEMENT