Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems, LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionInternet Contactspersonal jurisdictionspecific jurisdictionminimum contactsdue process

Facts

Advanced Tactical, which alleged that it was headquartered in Indiana, sold PepperBall-branded irritant projectiles. Real Action, a California company, announced on its website and through an email list that it had acquired machinery, recipes, and materials once used by PepperBall Technologies, prompting Advanced Tactical to claim trademark infringement and related wrongs. Real Action sent at least two allegedly misleading email blasts to subscribers that included Indiana residents, maintained an interactive website, and made some sales into Indiana, including a few after the challenged announcement. Real Action preserved its objection that Indiana lacked personal jurisdiction over it.

Issue

Did Indiana courts have specific personal jurisdiction over Real Action based on its allegedly misleading website posting, email blasts received by some Indiana residents, interactive website, knowledge that Advanced Tactical was allegedly an Indiana company, and limited sales into Indiana?

Rule

When no special federal personal-jurisdiction rule applies, a federal court looks to the forum state's law as limited by federal due process. Specific jurisdiction exists only when the defendant's suit-related conduct creates a substantial connection with the forum state, arising from contacts the defendant himself creates with the forum; the plaintiff's forum connections or foreseeable injury there are not enough. In internet cases, courts apply the ordinary minimum-contacts analysis: operating an interactive website or sending emails accessible in the forum, without evidence of targeting that forum or linking the contacts to the litigation, does not establish specific jurisdiction.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lumen Shield, a company based in Oregon, posts an allegedly infringing product announcement on its website and emails the same announcement to its nationwide subscriber list. It later ships three orders of the product to customers in Ohio, but the trademark owner suing in Ohio cannot show that any Ohio buyer saw the announcement or bought because of it.

If Lumen Shield challenges personal jurisdiction in federal court in Ohio, what is the best answer?

Explanation. Specific jurisdiction requires suit-related conduct by the defendant that creates a substantial connection with the forum. Sales into the forum do not suffice unless they are connected to the allegedly unlawful conduct at issue. Here, the plaintiff cannot show that the Ohio sales were related to the challenged announcement, so those sales do not support specific jurisdiction.