illinois st and this will be the focus of my argument here these are feminists these defendants purposefully and persistently sell large volumes of infringing electrical connectors through illinois dealerships satisfying the purposeful direction apartment the injuries arise from the formulated contacts as each of those infringing on which he injures the trade secret owner just keep counsel i know you want to focus on purposeful about that but my question bears on both is it your position then that if we haven't the circuit adapted justice brennan to you of the broader stream of commerce test that putting into the stream of commerce is a sufficient minimum contact that necessarily the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction anywhere in which the project the product is sold because the connection is there the sale itself which establishes the minimum contact is also a right that the tort arises out of that i would not necessary justice brennan's views that broadly i think the requirements to have a regular course or regular flow of sales so a single sale before two to sale a sale that is not perhaps directly intended d may not satisfy personal jurisdiction but here we have a persistent regular course and regular flow of sales we have intentional sales through illinois specific were and the only inclusive distribution network of which the defendants are well aware and intend to profit from it so if we agree with you on purpose of ailment then do you think it's an easy case on arising under yes it is a yes the nd element your honor actually might be the easiest one of all because the injury here is a trade secret misappropriation an injury and arises injury occurs sale and that event i don't see what the argument would be that there would be personal jurisdiction in illinois but just in michigan right the sales can be stopped but you can file that suit and illinois  you could file them illinois d in illinois a court would do two things st of all would probably follow the supreme court the lawyers opinion of russell and find that there is activity directed at illinois but i'm positing here that they have the secret but they haven't actually sold any goods that are now using your trade secret if they've appropriated the secret but they have not put it to use and there's no injury to anybody and you know if they just make this put it on the products they have the products they're ready to go but they're still how's it somewhere how somewhere they haven't been sold in illinois so the same tort right in the same misappropriation but if you're seeking injunctive relief to prevent the sale it can't be filed here i don't see how it could be filed here secret is not itself really obvious from from the goods and to protect the trade secret to protect its value the reports will d enjoy the sale and we decide cases that no i get the feel and join the sale i'm just trying to figure out what your arising out of argument is if it hasn't actually been sold in is i think this is a tricky case and it seems odd that for the exact same misappropriation you could seek injunctive really you could not see excuse me and judge of relief in illinois before hand right chevron i understand that but what we say i'm trying to figure out the implications of your theory are that if putting a product into the stream of commerce and i agree regular sales to a state that you can anticipate that it's going to hit illinois let's say you can anticipate it's going to hit all fifty states let's say that we agree with you that under our precedent that suffices for the purposeful van that product the test the implications of your argument are that then the defendant is subject to nationwide jurisdiction which is a little bit of an odd result and it's a little bit different than what would happen even in a product liability case because in a product liability case a defendant is only going to wind up being sued where accidents happen presumably that doesn't open the defendant up in any individual suit to a suit in any of the fifty states we are not saying that we can sue people in any of the fifty states our suit is based upon the fact that the connectors are sold in illinois that's why we're illinois they're heading here they're coming here they've been here they'll continue being here unless something is done right  defendant appear defendants chosen to sell through a very pervasive and large network of we're dealing with an exotic manufacturer who makes some type of cards and sold them perhaps a few states flew actually has pretty much all the exotic spitta for talking about some other the the case arises out of the contacts with illinois because we have a system of sending the connectors to illinois and that is the case before the court and that's what j it please the court brian goldman for the defendant's chair and i agree that the central question here is the arising out of prong of the test which is the ground on which the district court ruled and the district court correctly held that there is no specific jurisdiction here because all of defendants allegedly misappropriating conduct occurred outside of the illinois and specific jurisdiction has to rest on a defendant's conduct in the forum state yes because the way jay yes he has articulated it's injury at page three and twenty eight of its opening brief and this echoes what's in its complaint at paragraphs ninety three and ninety four is that it's the sale from defendants t bosh that is the injury because that is where instead of j s t be serving as the supplier to bosh the defendants are serving as that supplier to bosh and j s he says we were displaced from getting those contracts so that is the moment at which the tort it has alleged has been completed the elements this is necessarily a tort by toward determination of what the relevant conduct is and then you look at where that occurred that's of the elements here are the think both could fit within the definition of use i think this becomes an even easier case for us if the use is simply the manufacture the design and manufacture of the product incorporating this trade secret that there's some suggestion that some of the restatements and the like  marketing and sale of a good incorporating a trade secret could still count as a use and we're not fighting that here simply because we don't need to on the facts because defendants sale is the sale to bosh and so even that is completely outside of the forum and anything that happens downstream from there is not relevant to this tort as it's been alleged and that's indistinct from that glen or real action paint ball or aerial because it shows what the limit of that doctrine is so there there was a manufacturer outside the u s who sold to samsung japan knowing that samsung japan was then going to resell to samsung in austin texas and what the and that was a sale that happened in japan outside the united states and so that wasn't an actionable d claim for infringement but there was a separate claim in that case i think this provides a really helpful counterpoint it was a separate claim for contributory infringement which was the type of infringement also it issue in the honeywell case that g s t has relied on there and you get a different result there because the elements of that claim are different when you're talking about contributory infringement it's not the defendant's own infringing conduct that matters that court if we conceive of it as a tort isn't complete until some downstream party has infringed the patent and so in any mc what the federal circuit said is there is a domestic act of contributory infringement because the defendant had been in communication with samsung texas and so that disparity in the outcomes there just tracks the fact that the result is always going to vary with the tort and when you're dealing with that this illinois misappropriation court it matters that that toward is complete no later than the moment of the sale to bosh and that's before anything even enters the stream of commerce which is why the district court correctly held that it wasn't necessary to determine whether the stream of congress test could be satisfied whether the justice brennan or the justice o'connor view would apply there because that would all be further downstream than when the act is complete do you think the question involving an even more specific application of the arising out of pran where that the court's essentially looking to say is it even enough to say that your claim involves ford selling cars in montana when this particular vehicle was not sold in montana or does there have to be some tighter but for d proximate cause connection to say that this that this injury arose out of that precise car sale our view here is that there are simply no sales at all on the part of defendants in illinois that's been and that's undisputed and j s p is now trying to characterize the g m sales as defendant sales but it's again the injury that's been alleged is the sale to bosh and that's the only direct conduct that the defendants are and so you think that for purposes of your position even if we found the purposeful of down that process satisfy it would still be possible for there not to be specific jurisdiction because of the re don't know that she said even assuming but essentially even assuming that to be true the relevant conduct here all occurs outside of illinois and i think that would be a proper way to dispose of this case and you know i think the reason that the purposeful of bailment inquiry seems so tricky is because does there isn't this nexus in the st place that the fact that this claim does not arise out of illinois conduct is what makes it kind of hard to even conceptualize how this maps onto that sort of classic type of products liability case where the injury does not arise until the end of the stream of congress and the product has reached its destination because the tort is traveling with the product in a products liability case that again that's the distinction that the illinois supreme court drew in green when it distinguished gray this court then adopted that same distinction in the young case and that so this principle has existed for decades in holding that a products liability claim is necessarily going to be broader in terms of its potential scope because of where down the stream the relevant act occurs when you're dealing with an intentional tort that is complete much earlier in the process like bre fiduciary duty in young and green or that type of claim that that you have here or in matalin then it's going to be a narrow worst set of conduct that you look to to determine where that relevant location is and that's where we rely walden just because i think that's a good illustration there are some intentional torts that just involved in every narrow discrete apso a federal agents unlawfully season funds that happens in one place and so that agent can be sued where that to occurred or if the agent lives in a different state than perhaps where that agent lives but that's it and that's simply a function of the elements of that tort being a much narrower one the court has no further questions we ask that you cover the off chance that appellant would address to you kind of connectivities facts but be it be that as it may your are really to the heart of that what what a poet is asking for is universal jurisdiction in all states or  distinguished that case from beverly hills fan upon which we are a lie which appears to be the leading federal circuit case beverly hills fan of course concerned somebody who placed a fan in the stream of commerce and there was a pat infringement that went down the chain through various states  into into virginia m e m c focused on whether mere foreseeability of resale would be enough to show that there was contact and the court of course held that it was not it was not necessarily foreseeable that the nd person down the food chain with these silicon wafers i believe that were eventually heading to some of them were having to austin texas whether they would actually get there because it was an independent city maker in the middle of that stream of farmers  could choose to send them there maybe maybe not but here we have a beverly hills fan type of case and the federal circuit stated a distinction was that we would look to see where the interests of the manufacturer really lie and the interest of the manufacturer in this type of in the beverly hills bank ace live with the consumer sale we have here centrally is an argument which is the difficult to accept which is that the manufacturer of a component loses all interests and has only an  attenuated concern at best with what happens down the line with its component that is simply not the economic reality at least as far back as honeywell this court has always been concerned with economic reality and in honeywell we had a situation that was a different cities in germany for the construction of cars in germany yet there was just six in the united states in michigan because the component maker was targeting the mercedes network in the united states and therefore there was sponsible for those sales again that  again look to the economic reality of how it is in our economy the computer manufacturers function the only reason that we're here is because these connectors have value and the only reason these connectors have value is because consumers buy the g m cars this is not a case ordered and there's a continuing relationship and if the connectors didn't function and for some reason it could be could not be made to work in the g m cars then these contracts would have no value and the fact is that that the injury here does arise