CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson - 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996)

Rule:

Appellate courts conduct a plenary review of personal jurisdiction issues. Plaintiff, the party seeking assertion of in personam jurisdiction, bears the burden of showing that such jurisdiction exists. When, however, a district court rules on a jurisdictional motion to dismiss made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court must consider the pleadings and affidavits in a light most favorable to plaintiff. To defeat such a motion, plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction. Furthermore, a court disposing of a Rule 12(b)(2) motion does not weigh the controverting assertions of the party seeking dismissal, because courts want to prevent non-resident defendants from regularly avoiding personal jurisdiction simply by filing an affidavit denying all jurisdictional facts. Dismissal in this procedural posture is proper only if all the specific facts which plaintiff alleges collectively fail to state a prima facie case for jurisdiction.

Facts:

Defendant Richard Patterson marketed his product over the Internet through CompuServe. Patterson later accused CompuServe of trademark infringement, and demanded money from CompuServe to settle the matter. CompuServe sued in Ohio district court for declaratory relief that it was not infringing on Patterson’s trademarks. The district court dismissed the complaint and held that the electronic links between Patterson, who is a Texan, and Ohio, where CompuServe is headquartered, were "too tenuous to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction." The district court also denied CompuServe's motion for reconsideration. 

Issue:

Did CompuServe make a prima facie showing that Patterson's contacts with Ohio, which have been almost entirely electronic in nature, are sufficient, under the Due Process Clause, to support the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over him?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court of appeals reversed the judgment, holding that Patterson had sufficient contacts with Ohio through purposeful availment of the privilege of doing business in Ohio by marketing its product through an Ohio internet service provider, thus supporting the exercise of personal jurisdiction.