U.S. Supreme Court

Case Status


Docket Number


Cert. Denied


Questions Presented

1. Whether it violates due process for a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer based solely upon the volume of sales of its product in the forum state, where (a) such sales were made by an indirect corporate subsidiary and not by the foreign corporation, and (b) the foreign manufacturer did nothing to avail itself of the forum state.

2. Whether it is constitutionally reasonable and consistent with due process for a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer of an FDA-approved prescription medication in light of the regulatory scheme that renders the U.S. sponsor of such medication wholly liable for its design, testing, approval, manufacturing, labeling, marketing and sales, where the sponsor is a party to the action and has sufficient assets satisfy any judgment.

Case Updates

Cert. petition denied

October 21, 2013

U.S. Chamber asks Supreme Court to provide guidance on “stream of commerce” theory of jurisdiction

September 16, 2013

The U.S. Chamber urged the Supreme Court to review this personal jurisdiction case in order to clarify the contours of the so-called “stream of commerce” theory of jurisdiction. As the Chamber argues in its brief, the confusion stemming from the Court's fractured opinions on this issue—most recently in J. McIntrye Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011)—“has deprived companies of essential guidance on the jurisdictional consequences of decisions about how to sell their products” and “forced them to contest personal jurisdiction under vague standards and to bear the burdens of costly jurisdictional discovery.” In this case, the Oregon court tied the existence of jurisdiction to the sale of an unspecified volume of products in the forum state. As the Chamber notes in its brief, “such volume-based tests conflict with the approaches taken by several other federal and state appellate courts” and “are at odds with the underlying purpose of the Due Process Clause.” At a minimum, the Chamber urged the Court to hold the petition pending its decisions in DaimerChrysler AG v. Bauman and Walden v. Fiore.

Case Documents