## Facts

- DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. (DVD CCA), headquartered in California, claimed trade secret rights in the DVD Content Scrambling System (CSS) licensing program.
- Matthew Pavlovich, an out-of-state resident, helped lead an open-source Linux video project that maintained an informational website.
- The website was passive: it consisted of text and links, did not transact business, and did not enable interactive exchanges with users.
- The site posted DeCSS source code, which could decrypt CSS-protected DVDs.
- DVD CCA sued Pavlovich in California state court for trade secret misappropriation and sought only injunctive relief.
- Pavlovich moved to quash service of process for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting he had no California residence, property, business operations, solicitation, or other relevant forum contacts.
- Pavlovich asserted he did not know, at the time of posting, that DVD CCA was the CSS licensor or that it was based in California.

## Issues

1. Whether California courts may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident whose alleged forum connection is posting allegedly misappropriated trade secret information on a passive website accessible in California.
2. Whether foreseeable harm to a California-based plaintiff and industries satisfies the “effects test” absent evidence the defendant expressly aimed conduct at California.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed and ordered issuance of a writ directing the trial court to grant Pavlovich’s motion to quash.
- The Court held California lacked specific personal jurisdiction because Pavlovich did not purposefully avail himself of California and did not expressly aim his conduct at California.
- The Court rejected jurisdiction based solely on global Internet accessibility and foreseeable in-state effects.
- A dissent would have found jurisdiction based on intentional conduct and significant foreseeable impact on California interests.

## Legal Principles

- Specific jurisdiction requires purposeful forum-related conduct, a nexus between that conduct and the claim, and a reasonable exercise of jurisdiction consistent with fair play and substantial justice.
- Under the “effects test,” an intentional act and in-forum harm are insufficient without evidence the defendant expressly aimed the conduct at the forum state.
- Posting content on a passive, noncommercial, noninteractive website generally does not establish purposeful direction toward every state where the content can be accessed.
- Foreseeability that harm may be felt in the forum does not substitute for conduct targeting the forum.

## Conclusion

California could not constitutionally exercise specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant based solely on posting DeCSS source code on a passive website and the predictable impact on a California-based plaintiff, absent evidence that the defendant expressly targeted California.


Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 262 (Cal. 2002)