## Facts

- Go-Video, Inc., an Arizona-based corporation, held a U.S. patent for a “dual deck” video cassette recorder that could copy tapes within a single machine.
- Go-Video sought to buy component parts from foreign consumer-electronics manufacturers to assemble and market the product in the United States.
- Go-Video alleged that foreign electronics manufacturers and their trade association, along with domestic motion picture companies and their trade association, agreed to prevent dual-deck VCRs from being marketed in the United States and refused to deal with Go-Video.
- Go-Video sued under § 1 of the Sherman Act, asserting a conspiracy in restraint of trade.
- Go-Video filed in the District of Arizona, asserted venue for alien corporate defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d), and served foreign defendants under the worldwide service provision of Clayton Act § 12, 15 U.S.C. § 22.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court denied the motion and applied a national-contacts analysis for personal jurisdiction.
- A foreign manufacturer pursued an interlocutory appeal challenging venue and the personal-jurisdiction standard.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff who serves process under Clayton Act § 12 must establish venue exclusively under § 12, or may instead establish venue under the Alien Venue Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d).
2. Whether, when a federal statute authorizes nationwide (or worldwide) service of process, personal jurisdiction over alien corporate defendants may be based on their contacts with the United States as a whole rather than contacts with the forum district.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss.
- The court held that service under Clayton Act § 12 does not require venue to be established under § 12; venue may be established under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d) for alien defendants.
- The court held that when Clayton Act § 12 authorizes service of process, due process permits personal jurisdiction over alien defendants based on their aggregate contacts with the United States (national contacts), subject to Fifth Amendment fairness limits.

## Legal Principles

- Clayton Act § 12’s service-of-process provision may be used even if venue is established under a different federal venue statute; § 12’s venue clause is not the exclusive venue basis for antitrust suits.
- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d), alien corporate defendants may be sued in any federal district, and this venue rule applies in antitrust actions absent a clear statutory displacement.
- When Congress authorizes nationwide service of process, the relevant due process inquiry for personal jurisdiction focuses on minimum contacts with the United States as the sovereign, not minimum contacts with a particular state or district.
- Even under a national-contacts approach, exercising jurisdiction must satisfy Fifth Amendment “fair play and substantial justice” based on the defendants’ U.S.-related activities and the overall fairness of requiring defense in the chosen forum.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that an antitrust plaintiff may serve alien defendants under Clayton Act § 12 while relying on the Alien Venue Act for venue, and that personal jurisdiction in such cases may be grounded on defendants’ national contacts with the United States, constrained by Fifth Amendment fairness.


Go-Video, Inc. v. Akai Elec. Co., 885 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1989)