Reported / Citable
Background
Bright Head LLC sued dozens of online sellers for patent infringement and unfair competition, alleging that they sold infringing products through e-commerce storefronts. The district court initially authorized email service and entered a temporary restraining order, which it later extended.
Cosoos, Sevenka, and Eatelsin appeared and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Bright Head then sought a preliminary injunction. After a hearing, Magistrate Judge Henry J. Bemporad ordered Bright Head to supplement the record with evidence supporting jurisdiction over those three defendants.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the claims against Cosoos, Sevenka, and Eatelsin without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. Bright Head offered evidence that the defendants’ online stores could ship allegedly infringing products to Texas, plus aggregate Amazon sales data, but did not show actual sales to disinterested Texas residents.
Under the applicable internet-jurisdiction framework, the theoretical ability to sell into Texas is insufficient; a plaintiff must show actual forum-directed commercial activity. Plaintiff-arranged test purchases also cannot create the necessary contacts. Because jurisdiction was not established, Bright Head could not obtain a preliminary injunction against those defendants.
The magistrate judge further recommended denying Bright Head’s preliminary-injunction motion without prejudice as to the remaining defendants. The record did not show that the remaining defendants had notice of the preliminary-injunction motion or hearing, as Rule 65(a) requires.
Key Takeaways
- An online store’s ability to ship products to Texas does not alone establish specific personal jurisdiction in Texas.
- Evidence of actual sales to Texas residents—not plaintiff-generated test purchases—is required to show purposeful availment.
- A preliminary injunction cannot issue without notice to the adverse party.
Why It Matters
The recommendation underscores the evidentiary burden in Schedule A-style online-sales cases. Plaintiffs seeking emergency relief against out-of-state e-commerce sellers need jurisdictional evidence tied to actual sales in the forum, not merely storefront accessibility or shipping availability.
It also reinforces that alternative service of process does not eliminate Rule 65(a)’s separate notice requirement for preliminary-injunction proceedings.