Facts
- Telemedicine Solutions LLC (Telemedicine), an Illinois company, created a wound-care management system called “WoundRounds,” which included an internet-based platform, software, and hardware, introduced between 2005 and 2007.
- WoundRight Technologies, LLC (WoundRight), a Wyoming company, offered a competing wound-care system called “WoundRight.”
- In 2012, WoundRight registered and operated a website describing and advertising its WoundRight system.
- WoundRight’s website advertised a mobile application that users could download through third-party services.
- Both companies used online channels (including social media) to advertise their products to wound-care professionals.
- WoundRight purchased a Google advertisement keyed to the search term “woundrounds.” The ad stated: “Considering WoundRounds?—Don’t waste your time[.] Try the latest woundcare app for free!” and linked to WoundRight’s website.
- Telemedicine sued WoundRight in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging claims including trademark-related violations and related business tort theories (such as business disparagement and interference with prospective business advantage).
- WoundRight moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting it had no Illinois office, property, employees, or other substantial ties to Illinois, and that it did not specifically target Illinois customers.
- Telemedicine filed voluminous exhibits opposing dismissal, but its materials did not identify concrete Illinois-directed sales, contracting, or advertising activity by WoundRight; Telemedicine also requested jurisdictional discovery to explore WoundRight’s Illinois contacts and its knowledge of Telemedicine’s product.
Issues
- Whether an Illinois federal court could exercise general or specific personal jurisdiction over a Wyoming defendant based mainly on an accessible website, online advertising (including a Google ad keyed to the plaintiff’s mark), and an app available through third parties.
- Whether the plaintiff was entitled to jurisdictional discovery to search for additional Illinois contacts sufficient to support personal jurisdiction.
Decision
- The court granted WoundRight’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court denied Telemedicine’s request for jurisdictional discovery.
- Because the court lacked personal jurisdiction, it did not decide WoundRight’s alternative requests concerning venue, transfer, or dismissal of certain counts on the merits.
Legal Principles
- The plaintiff bears the burden to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction when the defendant challenges jurisdiction.
- General jurisdiction requires contacts so continuous and substantial that the defendant is essentially “at home” in the forum; a nonresident company generally is “at home” where it is formed and where it has its principal place of business.
- Specific jurisdiction requires defendant-created minimum contacts with the forum state and a connection between those contacts and the claims; the defendant must have purposefully directed its conduct toward the forum or purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities there.
- For intentional-tort theories of specific jurisdiction, the forum connection must be based on the defendant’s relationship with the state itself, not merely with a forum resident who experiences harm there (consistent with Walden v. Fiore).
- A generally accessible website, online content, and internet advertising visible in the forum do not, without evidence of forum-focused conduct (such as Illinois-directed sales, contracts, or targeting), establish specific jurisdiction.
- Jurisdictional discovery is discretionary and may be denied when the plaintiff does not make a colorable, fact-based showing that discovery is likely to uncover forum contacts sufficient for jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The court dismissed Telemedicine’s suit without prejudice because Telemedicine did not establish that WoundRight created Illinois-directed contacts tied to the alleged trademark and related tort claims; WoundRight’s website, app availability through third parties, and a Google ad keyed to “woundrounds” did not, on the existing record, show Illinois-focused conduct sufficient for specific jurisdiction, and the court declined to allow jurisdictional discovery based on speculation rather than a concrete preliminary showing.