good morning your honour's and may it please the court i'm scott how he and i represent the defendant at the land in this matter as an f a a french corporation with no place of business in this state no contracts in the states no representatives in the states no presence corporate virtual or physical in the state of any kind in illinois no contracts assets or operations in this state no contacts related in any way to this cause of action and no continue assistant continuous or systematic contacts of any kind the exercise of jurisdiction over as an f a a violates constitutional guarantees of due process and exceeds the limits long ago placed on the string of commerce theory by the supreme court of the united states and recognized twenty five years ago by this court in wiles vs morita ironworks and recently read least recently reiterated by the supreme court in mcintyre machinery versus nicastro the issue in this case is whether a foreign manufacturer of component parts parts can be subject to jurisdiction in illinois based solely on its overseas sales of those parts with the knowledge only that some of them could be incorporated into larger products that might find their way to anywhere in the world in mcintyre the supreme court found jurisdiction to be at odds over a manufacturer even for a manufacture with far more extensive involvement in the us market the s and f a has had here because that manufacturer had not purposefully directed its conduct toward the form state of new jersey a total of six justices in mcintyre squarely rejected the new jersey supreme court's holding that that state could exercise jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer just because it was foreseeable that its products were distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might lead to those products being sold in any of the fifty states or russia now that closely echoed this course decision twenty five years earlier in wiles were it recognized that while it would be reasonable to assume that a defendant might have availed itself of the united states market there is no showing in the record that that defendant purposefully directed its products into illinois the appellate court's decision in this case rests upon that same discredited standard of foreseeability and just as the supreme court rejected it in mcintyre this case arises from the two thousand and three fatal helicopter crash which the plaintiff blames on allegedly defective helicopter tail rotor bearings manufactured by s and f a as an f a a has had has no u s customers  helicopter bearings now and never has in fact the bearings at issue here were custom made for a single customer the italian helicopter maker a goose to s b a also a defendant in this case and were sold to a goose to buy as an f a in italy where they went and as an f a didn't know what would become of any particular bearing it produced or sold or where it would go in fact a goose to s f goose to end a c have both independently confirmed that they did not consult with s n sold individually a spare parts and it was aware that some of those uses could potentially bring those bearings to any place in the world including to american shores but it did not have any awareness or knowledge that  bearings would be sold or marketed in this state and without any evidence of that awareness there is no proper basis for finding personal jurisdiction over us and if a here this course set forth that principle in wiles and the appellate court until this case has followed it consistently in cases like morris vs jose enterprises and dickie versus kennedale corporation cases that are conspicuously unmentioned in the appellate court's decision here that principle has also been followed jurisdiction was found in the second district decision of survivors as chrysler corporation but all these cases stem from the supreme court's construction of a stream of commerce theory as set forth first most jersey supreme court's position but i have to my reading of this he doesn't really give us a way forward of where a majority of this from what would follow this where does that leave us well what what you can draw from macintyre there isn't it's you're correct that there is no majority opinion but there is majority reasoning and there are certain commonalities among the six justices in the majority and even commonalities as we'll see among all nine justices that point toward reversal in this case as to what justice pryor recognizes and where he agrees with the four justice plurality it's quite clear that all six of those justices disagree and reject the new jersey supreme court's construction of the stream of commerce theory if mcintyre stands for anything it rejects the new jersey supreme court's notion that potential sales in any states make for a sufficient minimum contacts in every state that simply is not the rule under any reasonable reading of mcintyre nor was it the rule prior to mcintyre if you look to cases as seminal as world wide votes wagon or again even this court's decision in wiles all recognize that simply an attempt to serve but the u s market as a whole can't be considered to be a minimum contact with every state in the union it can only be the only way that minimum context can be established through the stream of commerce theory are from an attempt to serve a particular state and what justice briar spoke of in in his concurrence was the requirement of something more terminology i believe he took from justice o'connor's opinion as you know psaki but something more than merely placing the product in the stream of commerce overseas and allowing it to wash up on the shores of the united states is required something more like special state related design would be required something more like special state related advertising the sorts of things that  weren't present in mcintyre and therefore didn't support personal jurisdiction there and are present in this case and don't support a personal jewish jurisdiction here either it's important also to recognize in mcintyre and mcintyre it's very mostly resembles this case except for certain certain aspects of it which actually make personal jurisdiction even harder to justify in the case before this court in macintyre there was a  foreign manufacturer the british manufacturer of the machine at issue and the american distributor with which it worked very closely in the united states to market and sell and distribute that those products throughout this country in fact that the scent in mcintyre it goes into great detail about how closely the british manufacturer worked with the american distributor to saturate the american market if possible  went to trade shows with the american distributor it worked very closely with the american distributor it was very clear that the american distributor considered itself to be the partner for marketing purposes of the british manufacture all of that notwithstanding what the six justices in the majority holding in mcintyre recognized was that those despite the extent of those contacts between the british manufacturer and the u s market as a whole there were no specific actions directed toward the form state of new jersey and in this case were actually a step removed from the facts of mcintyre because we don't have that close hand in glove relationship between the manufacturer s and f a and the party who was selling the helicopters containing as an f a products in the united states ac the only thing that s and if they did with its bearings was to sell them to a good start in italy a goose to then resold those bearings to a c in the united states a c sold them all over the world and while s n f a was certainly aware of the possibility that its product could go anywhere in the  world the supreme court has recognized as far back as the worldwide both swag and decision the jurisdiction doesn't travel with the chattel the way that the court memorably put it was that the manufacturer doesn't appoint the chattel it's agent for service process and so it's it's a sprawling view of jurisdiction to sprawling in the supreme court's view that would enable there to be jurisdiction any place in the world that that the product might be sold what minimum contacts require and w due process has always required as far back as the fundamental case an international shoe that we made and remember from first year law school that due process requires there to be some purposeful of ailment of the form state there has to be all if we're talking about hamilton's on strand we are not talking about helicopter bearings and that's an important distinction as to the question between specific jurisdiction and general jurisdiction the appellate court's decision didn't address the specific jurisdiction aspect and frankly the contacts with the u s market they have attempted to transfer those contacts to illinois by pointing to the fact that they're that hamilton son strand has an administrative office in rockford  keeping in mind that the reference to those bearings those are aerospace bearings a very different kind of bearing used in different aircraft with different purposes and entirely different sales and marketing structure but because that's a different product the product from which the case arose that would be an issue of general jurisdiction general or jurisdiction as we know breaks down into two particular varieties there is a general jurisdiction which is general jurisdiction essentially for all purposes any case that might arise would be the defendant would be subject to jurisdiction in the form state for that and that requires continuous and systematic contact with the form the sort of contacts that essentially show that the defendant has taken up residence in the foreign made itself at home there like in the supreme court case of perkins the philippine corporation that that relocated to the state of ohio during world war two and set up business there that's the sort of being at home continuous and systematic contact that's necessary for general jurisdiction which is as i say as is barely referred to by the the plaintiff in their brief what the appeal and then not addressed by the  talking about a different kind of bearing entirely something that can't be said this cause of action arose out of the bearing that's at issue here was a tail rotor bearing one of seven that one or more of of seven that are used on the accuse helicopter and are manufactured in france sold to to a goose to in italy and that's the extent of as an f a sales essays contacts with the united states involve the as the record shows of sales of aerospace bearings to three u s customers hamilton son's friend in california and then other customers two other customers one in arizona and one in indiana but none of those contacts are contacts with the united states or are with with the state of illinois they are contacts at most with the united states and as and because they don't concern the product at issue here and because this case can't in any way be said to have arisen from those contacts those contacts aren't any basis for a specific jurisdiction that's the key to jurisdiction here the in it or in any case the contacts either have to be so continuous and systematic that the defendant has essentially made itself at home in the form state which is not the case here or if there are less pervasive or extensive contacts than they have to be the bases out of which the case arose which again is not the case here international shoe is the seminal case that addresses jurisdiction and it is inaugurated the the modern view of personal jurisdiction is requiring minimum contacts minimum contacts have been defined as those which ensure that the exercise of judicial power over a nonresident is consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and that term in turn has been defined by reference to purposeful of ailment it requires that the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the foreign state thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws as to the helicopter bearings at issue here there is absolutely no evidence none whatsoever that the bearings were were sold to illinois by s and f a a or anyone connected with it the evidence shows in fact that the helicopter that's an issue in this case was not even one of those that arrived in illinois through the distribution system that gustaf employed the distribution system that that abuse to used was to sell its helicopters from italy to a ac in the united states where they could be sold anywhere in the world the record shows that only five of those to helicopters were sold to illinois purchasers and only three of them actually into the state and none of those five is the one that's at issue in this case they helped the helicopter th crash arrived in illinois through a series of transactions with with us an f a a had no connection and in fact even a goosed i had very little connection with the helicopter was it was sold in  manufactured and sold in one thousand nine hundred nine it was it had a number of owners including some at least one in europe who owned it in europe and then eventually made its way to the united states in one thousand nine hundred eight when it was sold to metro aviation louisiana defendant who was also a louisiana company was also a defendant in this case metro aviation installed bearings manufactured by s and f a a in louisiana and sometime after that on one why is it we are respectfully your honor i take issue with the idea that it's on point it's a thirty year old decision which is not it's not just bad law because it's old but time has passed it by at the time the federal court decided the rockwall decision in one thousand nine hundred two asahi versus appear your court in the us supreme court pardon me was still five years in the future and the requirement that that case set forth eight justices in asahi agreed that at the very minimum the stream of commerce requires a defendant to have some knowledge that its product is to be sold or marketed in the  that requirement was it was unknown to the federal district court in rockwell because it wasn't part of the law them had that requirement been part of the law i think it's a good argument can be made that the federal district court would have or the law is changed to reflect in some ways to reflect the differences in international commerce and has changed to recognise that this requirements of some knowledge even as business practices have changed one constant lo star throughout your personal jurisdiction jurisprudence has been the requirement of purposeful of ailments rockwell didn't know of what asahi would would require the purposeful of ailment would require at the very minimum some  kind of knowledge and as the plurality macintyre suggests something even more than that and justice briar recognized to it in in mcintyre something more than merely placing the product in the stream of commerce with the knowledge it might wash up on american shores that my time has expired if i may take a moment to briefly conclude the case law is quite clear that purposeful availing is required there is no evidence of that in this case and without any anything like that it's crucial that the appellate court's decision be reversed thank you may please the court mr chief justice fellow members of the court my name is todd smith and i am here on behalf of the estate of michael russell the happily for almost seventy years since international shoed the development of the case law recognizing has recognized the expansion of commerce in what they call the modern era in one nine hundred fifty seven in the game they discuss the fundamental transformation of a national economy and i think the question from justice freeman a moment ago was addressing the kind of development of an economy that the courts have tried to deal with over time great versus american radiator of course a long standing leading case not just in illinois but recognized in worldwide volkswagen which is really the last stand of justice twice you were asking where do we stand i think we still stand at world wide bokes wagon because that's the last statement of a court the got a majority of the court with both regard to a judgment and its reasoning in one nine hundred eighty and by the way and i guess an old case as well rockwell was criticized for being thirty years old world wide is thirty three  both the great opinion and the commie opinion despite the protestations of the defendants here remain solid precedent you've been called upon to say that from their reply brief that page fifteen connelly your decisions of from this court have not stood the test of time that they have been reversed by a plurality opinion from the u s supreme court where in justice briar could not have made it more clear that he had difficulty with both sides of that case he could not have made it more clear that he did not in any way agree with the reasoning of the four in the poll reality but just with the judgment reversing in that thought well i think just as briar even qualified his statement there he was quoting the new jersey supreme court and what he said was there holding had been that they might reasonably see and my impression there is from reading everything he said is that he couldn't do it in that case but i'm not even sure he if we were counting votes i'm not sure that he's going to go so far as to say that you don't just simply have about whether it was wonderful or in the facts even in that court but in his opinion it was one product that went into new jersey one machine and he was troubled that that one machine going in new jersey would suddenly mean you've got jurisdiction in all fifty states we have a much different circumstance here and he qualifies his view with regard to macintyre as in this case i can't do what the new jersey supreme court was saying i would suggest that with the to resident his family was in georgia but he was living with his mother and working here in illinois at the time which is which is that that's the factual situation with respect to him but i think illinois with the occurrence here we have far  more to talk about in terms of the connections of s n f a addressing the minimum contacts with the state let me just begin but described hamilton sunscreen as a california based manufacture that simply isn't the case that in the record that you have you will see that in one nine hundred twenty six two rockford companies rockford illinois merged into hamill's numbers into some strand and remained so until the late ninety's almost seventy five years where they became sun strand or they were sun strand remained that way until they were merged with the hamilton company now and became help from sun strand as they were bought by united technologies but rockford illinois was their location be point of having condo contracts in illinois has been raised with this court and i would point out that simply wasn't accurate at page twelve of their brief they say s n f they had never entered into any contracts with illinois the fact is that there were two there was a purchasing agreement and it buried in the record they were entered into with barbara barrett from hamilton sun strand at rockford illinois the first contract the purchasing contract lists lists that the top of the contract the buying location for all of those ball bearings that are being sold to hamilton some stand as being rockford illinois it goes on later within it from him to address the second contract first again the folks that rochefort they claim that there are no channels of customer service and customer service agreements that exact that's exactly what this proprietary agreement was it was a service agreement for the exchange of information between the two companies this company and you're the only company in rockford substantial connections to to illinois in the proprietary agreement there's a provision that says the laws of illinois will apply to those matters within that contract within the contract for purchase of valves that they had with rockford and they had with windsor lot connecticut base united technologies it says in there that the buyer the only company the illinois folks but hamilton sons found a buyer could sue wherever they wish to the appropriate jurors to any jurisdiction they wish to and the defendant s n f a agreed to jurisdiction in any court in the land and they agreed to have the secretary of state be their agent for service of process within that agreement so for purposes of developing their business in the united states and in illinois they agreed to be subject to personal jurisdiction within this country and birth in virtually all states but when it comes time to whether they should respond in illinois for purposes of the matter that happened with regard to a defective product of theirs they want to have nothing to do with us i don't believe they should be entitled to it both ways in the european union and the european union the agreement there and this is in our record the agreement there is where the accident occurs and i appreciate that that that may not be the pure and simple answer here but the minimum context of this away from illinois with all of that they ask for the protections of course of the state of illinois when they when they become come here we have visits by the way they said they had no no in the fax no  business events they visited twice to the to the facilities in iraq for a meeting there with folks after having come from san diego apparently as well in those memos within your record they talk with many in there about what the the meetings that they had they also had meetings with honeywell in arizona meetings with an our neighboring state a location for rolls royce they talk about they only have a couple of customers but look at the customers they have these are the major aerospace manufacturers in the world rolls royce engines that go into almost all aircraft honeywell in virtually every aircraft that's in the sky honeywell products are there and they're working with them in the memo that you'll see with respect to meeting with rolls royce they talk about we are ahead of our u s competitors ahead of our u s competitors with respect to the work they're doing then around i believe it's irrelevant it's a ball bearing manufacture a high end custom bomb bearing manufacture and that's what they sell they i mean if you're a fruit salesman and yoursel paris and bananas and oranges here in illinois but not apples if something happens here in illinois with respect to an apple i wouldn't suggest they couldn't be sued here in illinois where they have sufficient contacts particularly under circumstances where where they are they have a kind occurrence right here in illinois as well so i don't i don't think that is relevant because i think it really it addresses in terms of minimum contacts  it goes beyond that because we're looking to their activities and their activities are ball bearing sales and they're really all over the united states and in illinois with those activities i w of distribution that they did have for the helicopters just discordant below spoke to this he used the rockwell decision and i think for good reason rockwell is virtually indistinguishable as he put it distribution and if we look to connally grade and other cases you will see that they cannot duck the distribution patterns simply because they are a middle man the very same defect contention there that resulted in the crash of the a one zero nine helicopter so that the distribution in that was essentially what they have here it goes through there was one additional step i believe there was a they may have had a middle person between s n f a and a goose to over in europe but in any event it goes through those steps to a boost in italy and then it's to the a goose to distributor here in the united states for the sale of helicopters in this country this isn't about a macintyre one machine in which four than covering fifty states we're talking about a worldwide operation for this company which they acknowledge in their brief they sell to brazil and argentina the list is long with respect to the countries that are involved including the u s but i we think that there they have heavily komi aided the market here in the united states they certainly have worked in illinois to establish their contacts the  ballbearing sold to hamilton suns fan and part of that agreement for what for what they were for what are called a p use so you're really power units for the seventy seven  so they were going to boeing eventually but it may have been shipped in the invoice you'll see the invoice as they are the bought the from buying is listed as rockford so from the phone they ship the two it direction presumably of rockford i think that's reasonably clear is to san diego a manufacturing plant but nonetheless the buy was here in illinois and the contract was here in illinois hesitate to skip over justice briar in mcintyre i really think macintyre perhaps the court felt unfortunately did did not really get to where they might like to have taken it states doing just what happened here being utilized chicago land area second maybe now third largest metropolitan area in the country for air ambulances here first responders air ambulance that's the kind of market that was being pursued there was that it was the i'm trying to think of the case of the southern district was actually of st louis district court federal district court talked about this about it being the fifth largest state should not someone know or reasonably know that the helicopters that we've just supplied a component part to is very very likely to  arrive in this state i think so mr smith just asked you this you line you had earlier referred to these as high end ball bearings yes there's the record disclose how many manufacturers of this kind of high end ball number directly available but it's something of that nature it's a very small number of manufacturers and as i mentioned in that one memo you can see that they're competing with us companies coming over here to sell ball bearings and doing so i didn't wan leave the podium without commenting on their arising out of and relating to it's not simply arising out of that stand it and relating to it there are a number of cases that address this issue that we listed in our materials that know the the northern laminate sales case the schneider case compuserve patterson case one case in particular a colorado appellate court case but we did cite at suny t c h i guess all around i think was particularly good on this they said that the as a result of those activities the context that we're talking about and they're looking at the context i'd mention with randall since some strand not just whether a aircraft comes in it happens to be an aircraft arising out of that crash in that particular product is that a cause of action that's similar to that brought by the plaintiff in other words dealing with ball bearings and that's what we have a ball bearing manufacturer who's involved in sales here in illinois and an aircraft that had bats a ball bearing from that company that failed and he died mike ross will died in relation to that world wide distribution in the us and illinois the  point of not chasing chattel i agree with that we don't chase chattel around to determine the audi driving through oklahoma one one vehicle driving through oklahoma the question is what are the activities of the company where are they do they have contacts with us is it fair to bring them here is it fair for them to be doing business here in illinois to the extent that they do and not respond to jurisdiction here in illinois with the kind of activities they have here we think not the arising out of relating to cases that i've mentioned i think talk about a lenient and flexible rule with regard to that and it should not be considered the same thing relating to is different than arising out of and i think the quotes in in the actual some cases likewise made that clear i think the appellate court  was correct to close to look at the rockwell case valuate that he correctly i said that should survey correctly evaluated what mcentire was and what it isn't it's not standing for that proposition i think it's been reviewed and there's a case from the eighth circuit that i thought indicated if were to be counting votes which they wouldn't do they said but they did  about looking at what votes might be there they address the issues of how that might go but i don't think we can i don't think we'll look forward to what might be the decision of the court in the it please the court in listening to mr smith's argument it strikes me that he has done precisely what justice ginsburg wrote in the goodyear decision issued the same day as mcintyre on the subject of general personal jurisdiction caution that courts should not do mr smith melded the concepts of specific personal jurisdiction and general jurisdiction in a way that goodyear very clearly says and that's a majority opinion just as nice that majority that's a unanimous opinion pardon me but that unanimous supreme court said that those concepts can't be blended or melded they are very distinct specific jurisdiction as we've noted requires context that arise out of litigation that arises out of the contacts with the form and that goes to mr smith's suggestion that justice briar's concurring opinion the one that the plaintiff's brief suggests we should follow and we can't disagree with that he suggests that that opinion was limited specifically to the facts and he points to the phrase in the context of this case i cannot agree justice brier said but justice briar's very next words were to explain what it was about the context of that case that made him reject the new jersey supreme court's idea that potential sales in the united states as a whole might be sufficient minimum contacts for every single state in the union he said for one thing to adopt this view would abandon the here to four accepted inquiry of whether focusing upon the relationship between the defendant before him and the litigation it is fair it was to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant that's a very clear statement that the specific jurisdiction which was at issue in mcintyre requires in justice briar's view some nexus some in a relationship between the defendants contacts and the specific form and there is no contact that the pla discussed in their briefs oral argument today that establishes the requisite nexus they point to some contacts that the that s an f a has with samhain and son stranded in california and with other manufacturers in arizona and in the end but no contact and none of those contacts is a contact with illinois and more importantly none of those contacts supplies the basis for this cause of action ask yourselves what relevance the discovery in to hamilton son strands activities might have had to a case arising out of this helicopter bearing that's at issue in this case this is a particular bearing that is alleged to have failed particular bearing manufactured in france sold to italy  and then sold to louisiana before being flown into illinois the nexus is required to have litigation that arises out of the minimum contacts is simply not present for another thing just as prior wrote he couldn't reconcile so automatic a rule as the new jersey supreme court would have gone with gaited with the constitutional demand for minimum contacts and purpose full of ailments of which rests upon a particular notion of defendant based fairness and as he put it a rule like the new jersey supreme courts would permit every state to assert jurisdiction in a products liability suit against any domestic manufacturer who sells its product made anywhere in the united states to a national distributor and that rationale is exactly what the plaintiff would ask you to do here only this time with international corporations not just domestically manufacturers that's the result the justice prior quite clearly said could not comport with due process and would not respect the due process rights of the corporations and in fact the difference between being a domestic manufacturer and a foreign corporation as we had in mcintyre as we have in this case was further significant to justice prior because he went on to say for the fact that the defendant is a foreign rather than a domestic manufacturer makes the basic fairness of the new jersey's music new jersey supreme court's propose rule still more uncertain so he was still he was even further concerned with the fact that a rule that like that the new jersey supreme court put forth the very one that that all of mr smith's arguments this morning have been should have known that its product was to be sold throughout the united states and that requires first that you attribute the distribution network that a a c had and impute that network to as an f a in a way that the evidence simply doesn't support but even if the the national distribution network that was permitted that was examined here and mr smith has done his best to establish to exist even if that national distribution network could be imputed to us an f a the case law is quite clear and not just in mcintyre that a national distribution network is not enough to establish minimum contacts with every state in the union the idea that there might be the potential for a product to go anywhere in the world including into the united states and including potentially to any state in the union is simply not enough to satisfy the requirement of purposeful avail much of the benefits and protections of a particular state due process if it means anything it is reflected in in all of these cases as requiring that defendants or manufacturers or citizens throughout the world really or at least the united states and  throughout the world have the ability to structure their conduct in such a way as to know where it might expose them to lawsuits where they might be haled into court what due process requires just as much as it requires fair notice of a hearing is fair notice of where one's conduct might expose it to suit that's a principle that was not first set forth in mcintyre it goes back far earlier than that it's not enough as mr smith said this morning for conduct you have permeated the market in the us that wasn't enough and in wiles for this course which recognized that the manufacturer in that case may have shown an effort to target the united states in ways incidentally that as if he has not been shown to have done but in wiles even if s an f a were like the defendant in wiles the japanese defendant who had targeted the entire united states this court recognized that due process didn't permit minimum contacts to be found with the state of illinois and in reaching a conclusion it was following world wide folks wagon which had reached exactly the same conclusion that the idea that there might be the potential for the car in that case an inherently mobile product but that the court recognized that could go anywhere in the country the court recognized and mr smith agrees that the jurisdiction doesn't travel with the chattel the idea  that the car could go anywhere could even be sold anywhere because the court recognized the nationwide network of folks wagon dealerships that wasn't enough to show purposeful direction toward the form state of new york in that case and mcintyre only echoes those principles and if they're echoed in not just an injustice briars to justice concurrence which the plaintiff has who have argued that you should follow their echoed also in justice briar's ford or justice kennedy's for justice plurality opinion for a majority look also though if you would to the dissenting opinion for evidence that the supreme court's on facts like those of this case we actually been a unanimous decision in favor of not finding jurisdiction justice ginsburg's dissent in mcintyre recognizes a number of factors in distinguishing in her view mcintyre from asahi where there was no jurisdiction justice ginsburg recognized several factors that could almost be a component part manufacturer with little control over the final destination of its product in interstate commerce and s n f a matches that description to a t it's a component part manufacture with no involvement no control at all over the ultimate destination of its products so if you look to macintyre and you find the places in which the court agrees there is at least a six justice majority and arguably nine just finding that on facts of the facts of this case there would be no basis for jurisdiction just as gordon's opinion in the appellate court takes for mcentire the basic truism it might take a moment to briefly conclude the basic truism that under the right set of and jurisdiction might be based on an american distributor what the appellate court got wrong was what those right set of facts might require they require purposeful of ailment of the particular form they require at least knowledge that the product is to be sol or marketed in this form without that there can be no jurisdiction consistent with due process and the appellate court's decision must be reversed thank you thank you mr howe he and mr smith for your arguments you present this morning case number one one three nine zero nine john russell versus s and if a is taken under advisors and a number eleven