# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ NEXLEARN, LLC, Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

ALLEN INTERACTIONS, INC., Defendant

- Cross

- Appellant

______________________

2016

- 2170, 2016

- 2221

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in No. 6:15

- cv

- 01294

- EFM

- KGG, Judge Eric F. Melgren.

______________________

Decided: June 19, 2017

______________________

P AUL K. V ICKREY , Vitale Vickrey Niro & Gasey , Ch icago, IL, argued for plaintiff

- appellant.

M ARTIN B. P AVANE , Cozen O'Connor, New York, NY, argued for defendant

- cross

- appellant. Also represented by D ARREN S COTT M OGIL

.

______________________

Before M OORE , S CHALL , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges.

M OORE , Circuit Judge.NEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 2

NexLearn, LLC appeals from the District of Kansas’ dismissal of its complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

B ACKGROUND On September 24, 2015, NexLearn filed suit against Allen Interaction s, Inc. (“Allen”) in the District of Kansas alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,522 (“t he ’522 patent ”) and breach of contract. NexLearn allege d in its complaint tha t on February 10, 2009, Allen and NexLearn entered into a nondisclosure agreement (“NDA”) to allow Allen to learn more about NexLearn’s social simulation software called SimWriter ® . It allege d that pursuant to the NDA, NexLearn provided Allen with a trial version of SimWriter, which Allen accessed “on several occasions, after which Allen stated it was no longer interested in pursuing a deal with NexLearn.” J.A. 38. It allege d Allen thereafter developed its social simulation so ftware called ZebraZapps based on info rmation it “learned from its analysis of the confidential demo,” giving rise to NexLearn’s claims of patent i nfringement and breach of contract

. J.A. 38

– 39

. NexLearn
assert ed infringement of at least claims 1, 3

– 9, 1 1, 12, 14, and 25 of the ’522 patent , which is directed to a computer program for social simulation, and a ssert ed breach of the NDA by misusing NexLearn’s confidential information

. The NDA contains a choice -of- law provision stating Ka nsas law governs the agreement. Allen moved to dismiss NexLearn’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. 1 Allen is a Minnesota corporation

1 Allen alternatively moved for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. It argued that if it was subject to personal jurisdiction in Kansas, NexLearn’s claims should be dismissed because the ’522 patent is directed to unpatentable subject matter andNEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 3

with its principal place of business in Mendota Heights, Minnesota. It argued it was not s ubject to specific or general jurisdi ction in Kansas due to its limited contacts with the forum, which it argued amounted to a single sale unrelated to its ZebraZapps product and represent ed less than 1% of its revenue over the past five years

. It argued the NDA’s choice -of- law provision did not subject it to an action in Kansas because NexLearn’s complaint asserted that its breach of contract claim was supplemental to its patent infringement claim, J.A. 36, requiring NexLearn to establish personal jurisdiction over its infri ngement claim in order to bring its contract claim.

NexLearn opposed Allen’s motion and filed additional evidence to support its claim that the court could exer cise personal jurisdiction over Allen under a specific jurisdi ction theory

. NexLearn’s presiden t , Dennis Rees, filed a declaration stating Allen agreed to an End

- User License Agreement (“EULA”) when it accessed the SimWriter trial. The EULA specifies that “any dispute arising out of or related to this Agreement or the Product must be brought exclusively in a court sitting in Wichita, Kansas.” J.A. 216. Mr. Rees declared that since launching Zebr aZapps in 2011, Allen “continually se nt direct emails regarding ZebraZapps to two NexLearn employees.” J.A. 187 ¶ 2. He declared that another NexLearn emplo yee was offered a free trial of ZebraZapps after attempting to purchase ZebraZapps from Allen’s website without success. He declared Allen specifically targeted Kansas residents by including Kansas in the address selector’s dropdown menu on its ZebraZapps website. The declar ation summarized Allen’s activities with a trade associ a-

NexLearn failed to allege breach of contract prior to the NDA’s expiration in 2011. Because we affirm the district court’s holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Allen, we do not reach these alternative arguments.NEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 4

tion, which disseminated a magazine to Kansas residents th at included an adver tisement for Allen.
Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of NexLearn, the district court held that NexLearn failed to allege that Allen had sufficient contacts with Kansas to permit the exercise of specific jurisdiction. It determined the NDA and EULA Kansas choice -of- law and forum

selection provision s were not relevant for specific jurisdiction over NexLearn’s patent infringement claim

. It held that because five of Allen’s six emails to NexLearn e mployees were sent before the ’ 522 patent issued o n A ugust 5, 2014, NexLearn’s patent infringement claim could not have arisen out of or related to these emails . It held Allen’s sole post

- issuance email, as well as its offer of a free trial of ZebraZapps to a NexLearn employee, could not form a basis for exercising jurisdiction because these contacts were manufactured by NexLearn’s unilateral
acts. The NexLearn employees, it reasoned, received Allen’ s email s only because they subscribed to Allen’s

mass e mailing list a nd received a free trial of ZebraZapps only because of a purchase attempt

. Regarding Allen’s ZebraZapps website , the district court held the website alone, absent evidence of an actual sale, was insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction. It held neith er Allen’s single sale of a n unaccused product to a Kansas resident

nor its general advertisement in a trade publication was relevant to NexLearn’s patent infringement claim

. Because it held it lacked personal jurisdiction over NexLearn’s patent infringem ent claim, and because NexLearn did not assert breach of contract as an ind ependent basis for the district court’s subject matter juri sdiction, the district court granted Allen’s motion to dismiss

. NexLearn appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)( 1 ).NEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 5

D ISCUSSION “Personal jurisdiction is a question of law that we r eview de novo.” Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd. , 566 F.3d 1012, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We apply Federal Circuit law when reviewing claims “ intimately involved with t he substance of the patent laws ” and the law of the regional circuit when reviewing state law claims. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle , 340 F.3d 1344, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Where, as here, the district court decided personal jurisdiction “based on affidavits and other written materials in the absence of an evidentiary hearing, a plaintiff need only to make a prima facie sho wing that defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction.” Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co. , 552 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. C ir. 2008). We “accept the uncontroverted allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true and resolve any factual conflicts in the affidavits in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id. To make a prima facie showing, we ask “whether a forum state’ s long

- arm statute permits service of process and whether assertion of personal jurisdiction violates due process.” Autogenomics , 566 F.3d at 1017. The Kansas Supreme Court has interpreted Kansas’ long

arm statute to extend jurisdiction to the fullest extent allowed by due process. Merriman v. Crompton Corp.

, 146 P.3d 162, 179 (Kan. 2006).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a)

, “ it is well esta blished

— in certain classes of cases

— that, once a court has original jurisdiction over some claims in the action, it may exercise supple mental jurisdiction over additional claims that are part of the same case or controversy. ” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc. , 545 U.S. 546, 552 (2005). To exercise supplemental jurisdiction, the district court “must first have original jurisdic tion over at least one claim in the action.” Id. at 554.NEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 6

A. NexLearn’s Patent Infringement Claim
NexLearn alleges that personal jurisdiction exists for its patent infringement claim , the only claim over which it asserts the district court possesses original jurisdiction

. A district court can exercise personal jurisdiction over an out -of- state defendant pursuant to either gen eral or specific jurisdiction. Under general jurisdiction, a district
court can “hear any and all claims against [out -of- state defendants] when their affiliations with the State are so ‘continuous and systematic’ as to render them essentially at home in the forum State.” Daimler AG v. Bauman , 134 S. Ct. 746, 749 (2014) (citation omi tted). Specific jurisdi ction instead “focuses on the relationship among the d efendant, the forum, and the litigation.” Walden v. Fiore

, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1121 (2014) (alteration omitted). To comport with due process, the out -of- state defendant must have “minimum contacts” with the forum State “such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). At oral arg ument, NexLearn stated it alleged both general and speci fic jurisdiction. Oral arg. at 15:03

– 16:10. NexLearn did not argue general jurisdiction in its briefing to us or below to the district court. See NexLearn Br. 10; J.A. 7 (“NexLearn does not allege general jurisdiction but rather
t hat Allen had minimum contacts with Kansas based on specific jurisdiction.”). We thus decline to address general jurisdiction.

To determine whether specific jurisdiction exists we apply a three

- part test, in which we determine whether: (1) the defendant purposefully directed its activi ties to the forum S tate; (2) the claims arise out of or relate to those activities (collectively, the minimum contacts prong); and (3) the assertion of jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. Avocent

, 552 F.3d at 1332. We hold that NexLearn failed to allege sufficient minimum contacts with Allen to wa r-NEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 7

rant the exercise of specific jurisdiction over its patent infringement claim in Kansas.

1. Contacts Preda ting ’522 Patent Issuance
Many of the contacts NexLearn asserts confer specific jurisdiction over Allen occurred prior to the ’522 patent’s issuance

. Five of the six emails NexLearn cites were sent before August 5, 2014

. Allen’s actions relating to NexLe arn’s SimWriter trial

— executing the NDA , acces sing the trial, and agreeing to the EULA

— happened over five years before the ’522 patent issued

. Various other contacts alleged by NexLearn, including Allen’s present ations at trade association conference s in which Kansas residents are members and Allen’s advertisement in a trade association magazine, took place before August 5, 2014

. Allen’s pre

- issuance emails, presentations, and adve rtisements are not relevant to NexLearn’s claim that Allen “infringes at least claims 1, 3

– 9, 11, 12, 14, and 25 of t he ’522 patent .” 2 See J.A. 39. Specific jurisdiction requires that the plaintiff’s suit “arises out of or relates to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.” Daimler , 134 S. Ct.
at 749 ( citation and alterations omitted). If a defendant purposefully derives benefit from his activities within a forum, he may be sued in that forum “for consequences that arise proximately from such activities.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462, 474 (1985)

. Allen’s

2 Because our review is limited to whether Allen is subject to specific jur isdiction in Kansas, our analysis focuses on whether Allen’s pre

- issuance contacts are suit

related . We recognize of course that Allen’s contacts could be relevant to a general jurisdiction analysis, which permits a court to exercise jurisdiction based on contacts unrelated to the underlying action. See Walden , 134 S. Ct. at 1121 n.6.NEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 8

emails, presentations, and advertisement s predating August 5, 2014 cannot constitute infringing act s giving rise to NexLearn’ s claim because they did not occu r “ during the term of the patent .” 3 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)

. Because NexLearn’s infringement claim does not proximately arise from these actions

, they are not relevant to our specific jurisdiction inquiry.

To the extent Allen’s SimWriter trial activities are “related” to Allen’s later development of ZebraZapps , they are too attenuated to form a sufficient contact giving rise
to NexLearn’s claim of infringement

. NexLearn’s patent infringement claim does not arise proximately from these activities which occurred before NexLearn ever had a property right. This conduct is too far removed from NexLearn’s infringement claim to be a relevant jurisdi ctional contact.

The provisions within the NDA and EULA likewise do not render Allen subject to specific jurisdiction in Kansas. Burger King makes clear that the NDA ’s Kansas choice

of- law provisi on “standing alone would be insufficient to confer jurisdiction .” 105 S. Ct. at 482. Unlike the facts surrounding the contract in Burger King , the NDA in this

3 In some circumstances a defendant’s suit

- related contacts may extend to activities that occurred long before the plaintiff’s cause of action became ripe. See, e. g. , Burger King , 471 U.S. at 479

– 80 (considering the defen dant’s forum

- related contract negotiations in breach of contract suit). But in no way does NexLearn connect Allen’s independent pre

- issuance actions with any later infringing conduct to render them relevant. See Synthes (U.S.A.) v. G.M. Dos Reis Jr. Ind. Com de Equip. Medico

, 563 F.3d 1285, 1297

– 98 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding display of products at a trade show after the patent’s issuance and “ for the purpose of generating interest in infringing products ” was a relevant jurisdictional contact).NEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 9

case does not otherwise evidence Allen’s “deliberate affiliation with the forum State and the reasonable for eseeability of possible litigation there.” Id. The NDA

, by its terms, expired in 2011. J.A. 44 ¶ 19. We fail to see how a provision in an expired NDA stating the “Agre ement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Ka nsas” shows reaso nable foreseeability of litigation in Kansas over NexLearn’s claim of infringement of the ’522 patent. See J.A. 43 ¶ 9. While t he EULA does not bear an expiration date

, it suffers the same deficiency. The EULA requires that “any dispute arising out of o r related to this Agreement or the Product must be brought exclusively in a cour t sitting in Wichita, Kansas.” J.A. 216. This provision only recites forum selection for disputes arising out of the EULA or related to the Si mWriter product. It does not sp ecify the forum for disputes relating to inf ringement of the ’522 patent or relating to the ZebraZapps product

. Nor does NexLearn ’s complaint even assert breach of EULA; NexLearn’s breach of co ntract claim res ts on breach of the NDA

. J.A. 38 ¶ 11 (“Allen ’s misuse of NexLearn’s confidential information constitutes a breach of the NDA.”).

W e agree with the district court’s determination that Allen’s contacts pre dating the issuance of the ’522 patent are not relevant contacts for establishing specific juris diction over NexLearn’s patent infringement claim

.

2. Allen’s ZebraZapps Website & Contacts Postdating ’522 Patent Issuance
NexLearn alleges Allen’s operation of an interactive ZebraZapps website creates a substantial connection with its patent infringement claim in Kansas. According to NexLearn, “Allen has specifically targeted Kansas res idents in facilitating the purchase of ZebraZapps” on its website by allowing Kansas residents to sel ect “Kansas” from a dropdown menu in the billing

- address section when ordering ZebraZapps. J.A. 187

– 88 ¶ 4. NexLearnNEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 10

also identifies two instances in which Allen interacted with NexLearn employees residing in Kansas after the ’522 patent issued. On Sept ember 9, 2014, Allen sent an email to its email subscribers, which includ ed NexLearn employees, describing new features in Zeb raZapps. J.A. 205

– 07. In July 2015, Allen’s Director of Customer Success Services offered a NexLearn employee a free trial of Ze braZapps after she unsuccessfully attempted to purchase the product from Allen’s website. J.A. 188 ¶ 5. We agree with the district court that Allen’s Zebr aZapps website alone does not render it subject to specific jurisdiction in Kansas. See J.A. 11

– 14

. We also agree with the district court that the addition of Allen’s two
contacts with NexLearn employees is insufficient to confer specific jurisdiction over Allen. B ut we do not agree with the district court’s analysis in reaching that conclusion.

We e valuate Allen’s website as we would any other contact under a specific jurisdiction theory; for there to be minimum contacts, there must be evidence that Allen purposefully availed itself of Kansas and that NexLearn’s claim arises out of or relates to thos e contacts. 4 The existence of Allen’s website , without more, is in sufficient to show that Allen has minimum contacts with Kansas. Cf. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House , 626 F.3d 1222, 1235 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding “ this court cannot determine that Abbyy Software purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in California by some affirmative act or conduct, and that Nuance’ s claim s arise out of those activities,” although Abbyy Software maintai ned a website that “promotes the

4 We agree with the district court’s decision not to

ap ply the Zippo “sliding scale” test to assess personal juri s diction in this case. See J.A. 12

– 13 (citing Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. , 952 F. Sup p. 1119, 1124 (W.D. Pa. 1997)).NEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 11

sale of [the infringing] products in California”); Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale , 542 F.3d 879, 884 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ( not relying on defendant’s website as a contact for specific jurisdiction and specifying in the general juris diction context, “maintenance of a website is also insufficient to give rise to general jurisdiction over the defendants in the State of Washington, as the website is not directed at customers in Washington and does not appear to have generated any sales i n Washington”). We addressed whether a defendant’s website gave rise to specific juri sdiction in Trintec , in which Trintec alleged Pedre was subject to specific jurisdiction in the District of Columbia based on “Pedre’s use of its own interactive website to advertise its products, which Trintec alleges customers in the District of Columbia can use to purchase those pro ducts from Pedre. ” Trintec Indus., Inc. v. Pedre Promotio nal Prods., Inc. , 395 F.3d 1275, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005). We explained the difficul ty with that specific jurisdiction theory was that “ Pedre’s website is not directed at cu stomers in the District of Columbia, but instead is avail able to all customers throughout the coun try.” Id. Absent evidence that “ any District residents have ever ac tual ly used Pedre’ s website to transact business ,” Trintec’s allegations (together with other evidence of Pedre’s co ntacts) were insufficient to show specific jurisdiction exis ted. Id. at 1281

– 82.

Allen’s inclusion of Kansas in its dropdown of all
state s on its website is not enough to subject Allen to jurisdiction in Kansas . Allen’s address selector may indicate its amenability to selling ZebraZapps to Kansas residents, but it does not establish minimum contacts arising out of or related to the infringement claim

. While a Kansas resident could purchase ZebraZapps from Allen’s website, what is missing is any evidence that such a sale has taken place. Apart from the NexLearn emplo yee that unsuccessfully attempted to purchase ZebraZapps, NexLearn does no t even allege that any Kansas residentNEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 12

has accessed Allen’s ZebraZapps website. There is no evidence that Allen’s website facilitated the mak ing, using , offer ing , or s elling of ZebraZapps in Kansas in order to connect Allen’s website with NexLearn’s paten t infringement claim. In this respect, Allen’s website is conceptually no different than operating an out -of- state store. That a store would accept payment from a hyp othetical out -of- state resident and ship its product there does not create a substantial connection for an infring ement claim between the store and the hypothetical res ident’s forum State. The store’s willingness to enter future transactions with out -of- state residents does not, without more, show purposeful availment of each State in which it would, but has not yet, provided or even offered a sale. Something more is needed

— whether it be actual sales, targeted advertising, or contractual relationships

— to connect the defendant’s infringing acts of making, using, offering, or selling its produ ct with the forum State. What is sufficient may vary from case to case, but it cannot be that the mere existence of an interactive website, like the existence of an out -of- state sto re, is “suit

- related co nduct

. . . creat[ing ] a substantial connection with the forum State.” Walden , 134 S. Ct. at 1121. The addition of Allen’s two post

- issuance contacts with NexLearn employees do not suffice to render Allen subject to jurisdiction in Kansas. W e do not agree with the district c ourt’s determination that Allen’s sole post

issuance email to NexLearn employees was irrelevant because NexLearn “unilaterally expressed an interest in Zeb raZapps or Allen.” J.A. 10

– 11. It is true that when determining whether a defendant has minimum con tacts with a forum State, the “unilateral activity of another party or a third person is not an appropriate consider ation.” Hel icopteros Nacionales de Colom. , S.A. v. Hall , 466 U.S. 408, 417 (1984); see also Walden , 134 S. Ct. at 1122 (“[T]he relationship must arise out of contacts that the ‘defendant himself ’ creates with the forum State.” (quo t-NEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 13

ing Burger King , 471 U.S. at 475 )) . But Allen’s email to NexLearn employees is not categorically irrelevant simply because the NexLearn employees solicited the em ail. It is undisputed that Allen accepted these employees’ requests to receive emails about ZebraZapps and Allen. It is also undisputed that Allen thereafter emailed these NexLearn employees about ZebraZapps and its company. Allen extinguished the unila teral nature of these contacts when it affirmatively responded to these employees’ requests by including them on its email subscription list and sending an email to these subscribers.

While Allen’s post

- issuance email is relevant to our specific jurisdicti on inquiry, it is not enough to confer specific jurisdiction. The sole post

- issuance email in the record consists of a mass

- email advertisement about “new features, updates, and enhancements” made to Zebr aZapps. J.A. 205

– 06. At the end of the email, All en i nstructs the recipients of its email to “[l]earn more about the new features and start creating exceptional e

- learning solutions with ZebraZapps today” and provides a link to its website. J.A. 207. We have previously held that similar contacts, in wh ich an advertisement was “natio nally distributed and not limited to [the forum State ] ,” are “attenuated evidence [that] does not show that the [forum State] was a target market.” Compare Grober v. Mako Prods., Inc. , 686 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (natio nal advertisement mailed twice per year did not show the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities within California), with Quill Corp. v. North Dakota , 504 U.S. 298, 304, 308 (1992) (defen dant’s mailing of 24 tons of catalogs and flyers each year into North Dakota subjected it to specific jurisdiction there )

. While Kansas need not be the only target of Allen’s conduct, Allen’s mailing of one advertisement to all of its nationwide subscribers does not “create a su bstantial connection with the forum State.” Walden , 134 S. Ct. at 1121. We also question whether NexLearn’sNEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 14

infringement claim could arise out of or relate to this advertisement because the advertisement does not appear to expressly offer ZebraZapps for sale. “[M] ere adverti sing and promoting of a product may be nothing more than an invitation for offers .” Grp. One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc. , 254 F.3d 1041, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also 3D Sys., Inc. v. Aarotech Labs., Inc. , 160 F.3d 1373 (Fed

. Cir. 1998) (holding price quotation letters were offers for sale under § 271 where they contained “a description of the allegedly infringing merchandise and the price at which it can be purchased”). Regardless of whether Allen’s single email could quali fy as an offer for sale under § 271(a), it is insufficient to establish minimum contacts with Kansas in this case.
For similar reasons, we do not agree with the district court’s determination that Allen’s offer of a free Zebr aZapps trial to a NexLearn empl oyee is irrelevant to our specific jurisdiction inquiry. See J.A. 14 (explaining it “cannot consider those contacts that are created or man ufactured by the plaintiff for purposes of establishing personal jurisdictio n” ). NexLearn did not unilaterally

caus e this contact to arise; Allen purposefully directed activities to Kansas when it offered the NexLearn e mployee the free trial. So long as Allen’s offer of the free ZebraZapps trial qualifies as or relates to a make, use, offer, or sale of an accused prod uct under § 271(a) , we fail to see why this contact is irrelevant to NexLearn’s patent infringement claim simply because the recipient was a NexLearn employee. If Allen’s offer of the free trial constituted or gave rise to an act of infringement , it is im material whether or not the offer was made to an employee of the patent holder

. This contact is jurisdi ctionally relevant to NexLearn’s patent infringement claim.
As with Allen’s single post

- issuance email to NexLearn employee s , however, Allen’s single offer of a free ZebraZapps trial is too attenuated to establis h min i-NEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 15

mum contacts with Kansas. In light of the “relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation,” Allen’s single offer is too insignificant to justify haling it into court in K ansas. See Walden , 134 S. Ct. at 1121 (alteration omit ted); cf. J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nica stro , 564 U.S. 873, 888

– 89 (2011) (Breyer, J., concur ring) (“[T]he Court, in separate opinions, has strongly sugges ted a single sale of a product in a State doe s not constitute an adequate basis for asserting specific jurisdiction over
an out -of- state defendant . . . .” ). It does not create a substantial connection with either Kansas or NexLearn’s cause of action. We have previously held that a defen dant’s cont acts with a forum State, similar to those here, were insufficient to establish minimum contacts. In Maynard , for example, we held Maynard failed to allege Philadelphia Cervical was subject to specific jurisdiction in Kentucky where Philadelphia Cervical “ (1) sent a letter to Maynard in Kentucky dated December 1, 1992, (2) maintained an Internet web page, and (3) sold a Phi ladelphia Cervical product to Maynard in Kentucky .” See Maynard v. Phila. Cervical Collar Co. , 18 F. App’ x 814, 816

– 17 (Fed. Cir. 2001) . In Katz , we explained that the defendant’s single sale to the plaintiff, among the tho usands of containers it sold in a different S tate, did not subject the defendant to specific jurisdiction. Katz v. Ladd Uniform Co. , 975 F.2d 869 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (u npublished) ( “Katz’s isolated mail

- order requests were for the supply of three gas containers, with a total sales value of $26.85.

. . . Ladd’s isolated action did not satisfy the ‘minimum contacts’ that are necessary to meet the r equirements of due process.” ). Here, Allen’s isolated offer of a free trial to a Kansas resident is insufficient to esta blish a substantial connection with Kansas to warrant the exercise of specific jurisdiction.
Allen’s website together with its contacts with NexLearn crea te only an “attenuated affiliation” with Kansas as opposed to a “substantial connection” with theNEXLEARN , LLC v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS , INC

. 16

forum State as required for specific jurisdiction. See Burger King , 471 U.S. at 475. We thus affirm the district court’s dismissal of NexLearn’s patent infr ingement claim for lack of personal jurisdiction.

B. NexLearn’s Breach of Contract Claim

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of NexLearn’s remaining claim for breach of contract for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. NexLearn’s complaint asserts the D istrict of Kansas has original subject matter jurisdiction over only its patent infringement claim, resting its breach of contract claim on “supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.” J.A. 36 ¶ 1. While neither party disputes that a claim f or patent infringement falls within the district court’s subject matter jurisd iction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), the district court’s dismissal of that claim for lack of personal jurisdiction left no remai ning claim over which the district cour t could exercise original subject matter jurisdiction. See J.A. 17. A di strict court cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim where original subject matter jurisdiction does not exist. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). Because we affirm the district

c ourt’s dismissal of NexLearn’s patent infringement claim for lack of personal jurisdiction, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of NexLearn’s supplemental claim for breach of contract

. C ONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, w e affirm the district court’s dismiss al of NexLearn’s complaint.

AFFIRMED

C OSTS

Costs to Allen.