{"id":1610,"date":"2017-06-19T23:15:26","date_gmt":"2017-06-20T03:15:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1610"},"modified":"2017-06-22T23:09:48","modified_gmt":"2017-06-23T03:09:48","slug":"good-news-an-interactive-website-wont-force-you-to-go-to-kansas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1610","title":{"rendered":"Oh, No, Toto An Interactive Website Won’t Bring You to Kansas"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Nexlearn, LLC v. Allen Interactions, Inc.<\/a>, [2016-2170, 2016-2221](June 19, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a complaint for patent infringement for lack of personal jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

NexLearn sued\u00a0Allen Interactions in the District of Kansas\u00a0alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,522 and\u00a0breach of contract. \u00a0Allen Interactions, a Minnesota corporation, moved to dismiss NexLearn\u2019s complaint for lack\u00a0of personal jurisdiction. \u00a0Allen Interactions argued it was not subject to specific or\u00a0general jurisdiction in Kansas due to its limited contacts\u00a0with the forum, which it argued amounted to a single sale\u00a0unrelated to the accused product that represented less\u00a0than 1% of its revenue over the past five years.<\/p>\n

NexLearn did\u00a0not argue general jurisdiction in its briefing, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of\u00a0NexLearn, the district court held that NexLearn failed to\u00a0allege that Allen Interactions had sufficient contacts with Kansas to\u00a0permit the exercise of specific jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

On appeal the Federal Circuit applied a\u00a0three-part test, in which it determines whether:\u00a0(1) the defendant purposefully directed its activities to the\u00a0forum State; (2) the claims arise out of or relate to those\u00a0activities (collectively, the minimum contacts prong); and\u00a0(3) the assertion of jurisdiction is reasonable and fair.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit discounted Allen Interactions’ activities prior to the patent issuance as irrelevant to patent infringement. \u00a0The Federal Circuit also agreed that forum selection\u00a0provisions in an expired NDA and EULA agreement unrelated to the infringement, likewise did not subject Allen Interactions to specific jurisdiction in Kansas.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit then considered Allen Interaction’s website. NexLearn argued that the fact that “Kansas” was in a drop down menu for billing address showed that Allen Interaction was targeting Kansas. \u00a0However the Federal Circuit found that Allen Interaction\u2019s address selector may\u00a0indicate its amenability to selling the accused product to Kansas\u00a0residents, but it does not establish minimum contacts
\narising out of or related to the infringement claim. The Federal Circuit said that while\u00a0a Kansas resident could purchase the accused product from the\u00a0Allen\u2019s website, what was missing was any evidence that such
\na sale has taken place, or that any Kansas resident ever even accessed the website. \u00a0The Federal Circuit explained that the website:<\/p>\n

is\u00a0conceptually no different than operating an out-of-state\u00a0store. That a store would accept payment from a hypothetical\u00a0out-of-state resident and ship its product there\u00a0does not create a substantial connection for an infringement\u00a0claim between the store and the hypothetical resident\u2019s\u00a0forum State.\u00a0The store\u2019s willingness to enter future transactions with out-of-state residents does not, without\u00a0more, show purposeful availment of each State in which it would, but has not yet, provided or even offered a sale.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Federal Circuit said that something more is needed\u2014whether it be actual sales,\u00a0targeted advertising, or contractual relationships\u2014to
\nconnect the defendant\u2019s infringing acts of making, using,\u00a0offering, or selling its product with the forum State. While what\u00a0is sufficient may vary from case to case, the Federal Circuit said that it cannot be\u00a0that the mere existence of an interactive website, like the\u00a0existence of an out-of-state store, is suit-related conduct\u00a0creating a substantial connection with the\u00a0forum state.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit also found that Allen Interaction’s email to a NexLearn employee regarding new features of the accused software product, and an offer to a NexLearn employees of a free trial of the accused software product were insufficient. \u00a0However the Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s rationale that this was because it was unilateral conduct on NexLearn’s part. \u00a0Instead, the Federal Circuit found that the email was a mass-email advertisement that did not show that that Kansas was a target market. \u00a0The mailing of one advertisement to
\nall of its nationwide subscribers did not create a substantial\u00a0connection with Kansas.<\/p>\n

Similarly with respect to the offer of a free trial, the Federal Circuit disagreed that this was irrelevant, but simply that\u00a0single offer of a
\nfree trial is too attenuated to establish minimum contacts with Kansas.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the patent infringement claim, and the supplemental claim for breach of contract as well.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Nexlearn, LLC v. Allen Interactions, Inc., [2016-2170, 2016-2221](June 19, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a complaint for patent infringement for lack of personal jurisdiction. NexLearn sued\u00a0Allen Interactions in the District of Kansas\u00a0alleging infringement of U.S. Patent … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-jurisdiction"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1610","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1610"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1610\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1613,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1610\/revisions\/1613"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}