Opinion ID: 780718
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Case Law from Other Circuits

Text: 26 Several Courts of Appeals decisions have adopted purposeful availment requirements that are consistent with the principles articulated in the Zippo line of cases. The Fourth Circuit, in ALS Scan v. Digital Service Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir.2002), expressly incorporated an intentionality requirement when fashioning a test for personal jurisdiction in the context of the Internet: 27 a State may, consistent with due process, exercise judicial power over a person outside of the State when that person (1) directs electronic activity into the State, (2) with the manifested intent of engaging in business or other interactions within the State, and (3) that activity creates, in a person within the State, a potential cause of action cognizable in the State's courts. 28 Id. at 714 (emphasis added). 29 In Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir.1997), the Ninth Circuit considered an infringement action brought against a Florida web site operator whose allegedly infringing site was accessible in Arizona, the state where the plaintiff had its principal place of business. In declining to exercise specific personal jurisdiction, the Cybersell court found there must be `something more' [beyond the mere posting of a passive web site] to indicate that the defendant purposefully (albeit electronically) directed his activity in a substantial way to the forum state. Id. at 418. Decisions from other circuits have articulated similar standards. See, e.g., Neogen Corp. v. Neo Gen Screening, Inc., 282 F.3d 883, 890 (6th Cir.2002) (holding that the purposeful availment requirement is satisfied if the web site is interactive to a degree that reveals specifically intended interaction with residents of the state) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).