Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 7

4 

ABITRON AUSTRIA GMBH v. HETRONIC INT’L, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

accord, Kiobel, 569 U. S., at 117 (asking whether Congress
“intends federal law to apply to conduct occurring abroad”); 
Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., 
at 3).  If Congress has provided an unmistakable instruc-
tion that the provision is extraterritorial, then claims alleg-
ing exclusively foreign conduct may proceed, subject to “the
limits  Congress  has  (or  has  not)  imposed  on  the  statute’s
foreign application.”  RJR Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 337–338. 
If a provision is not extraterritorial, we move to step two,
which  resolves  whether  the  suit  seeks  a  (permissible)  do-
mestic  or  (impermissible)  foreign application  of  the  provi-
sion.2    To  make  that  determination,  courts  must  start  by
identifying the “ ‘ “focus” of congressional concern’ ” underly-
ing the provision at issue.  Id., at 336.  “The focus of a stat-
ute is ‘the object of its solicitude,’ which can include the con-
duct  it  ‘seeks  to  “regulate,” ’  as  well  as  the  parties  and 
interests it ‘seeks to “protect” ’ or vindicate.”  WesternGeco 
LLC  v.  ION  Geophysical  Corp.,  585  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2018) 
(slip op., at 6) (alterations omitted).

Step  two  does  not  end  with  identifying  statutory  focus. 
We  have  repeatedly  and  explicitly  held  that  courts  must 
“identif[y] ‘the statute’s “focus” ’ and as[k] whether the con-
duct relevant to that focus occurred in United States terri-
tory.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 5) (emphasis added); accord, 
e.g., RJR Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 337.  Thus, to prove that a
claim  involves  a  domestic  application  of  a  statute,  “plain-
tiffs must establish that ‘the conduct relevant to the statute’s 
focus occurred in the United States.’ ”  Nestlé, 593 U. S., at 
___–___ (slip op., at 3–4) (emphasis added); see, e.g., West-
ernGeco, 585 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 6–8) (holding that 
a  claim  was  a  domestic  application  of  the  Patent  Act  be-
cause the infringing acts—the conduct relevant to the focus 

—————— 

2 As we have noted, courts may take these steps in any order.  See, e.g., 
Yegiazaryan v. Smagin, 599 U. S. ___, ___–___, n. 2 (2023) (slip op., at 6– 
7, n. 2).