United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.
Plaintiff Telemedicine Solutions LLC and Defendant WoundRight Technologies, LLC are purveyors of electronic systems and products aimed at medical practitioners. Plaintiff's system is called WoundRounds; Defendant's, is called WoundRight. In its complaint against Defendant Plaintiff alleged Defendant infringed on and diluted Plaintiff's trademark; engaged in unfair competition, cyberpiracy, and deceptive trade practices, disparaged and defamed Plaintiff; and tortiously interfered with Plaintiff's economic advantage.
Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Illinois in July 2005. Its principal place of business is Schaumburg, Illinois. Soon after its founding, Plaintiff entered the wound care industry, promoting, marketing, selling, and providing services related to its "Wound Rounds" system, an electronic documentation and wound care management system. Plaintiff registered the domain name "woundrounds.com" in February 2006, and thereafter augmented its online presence by using social media sites such as YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter
Defendant is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Wyoming with its principal place of business in Laramie, Wyoming. Defendant uses the term "WoundRight" to denote its goods and services, which according to Plaintiff are "the same or nearly identical" to Plaintiff's "WoundRounds" goods and services. Defendant does not have (and never has had) any physical presence in Illinois.. Defendant never has sold any products or services to customers in Illinois.
Defendant, like Plaintiff, maintains a presence on the Internet beyond its website. Defendant uses social media, including Facebook and Twitter, to communicate with potential customers throughout the United States.Through these social media channels, Defendant promotes its product and calls attention to the wound care field generally.
Plaintiff alleged that Defendant transacted business in Illinois via its advertising, marketing, and solicitation activities and its website; and its placement of its product into the stream of commerce in Illinois. Plaintiff asserts claims arising under the Lanham Act, Illinois statutory law, and the common law.
The federal test for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment authorizes a court to exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant only if the defendant has "certain minimum contacts with [the state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"
I
The Seventh Circuit has distilled a three-pronged "express aiming" test for personal jurisdiction in the context of intentional torts: " (1) intentional conduct (or `intentional and allegedly tortious conduct'); (2) expressly aimed at the forum state; (3) with the defendant's knowledge that the effects would be felt — that is, the plaintiff would be injured — in the forum state.
The Seventh Circuit has held that "[a]t a minimum, the plaintiff must establish a colorable or prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction before discovery should be permitted."Because Plaintiff failed to make such a prima facie showing, and had not indicated how additional discovery from Defendant would enable it to do so, the Court denied the request for jurisdictional discovery.
The Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Since the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendant, it did not assess the merits of Defendant's alternative requests to dismiss for improper venue, transfer venue,
