In action seeking recovery for damages caused by defendant’s 18650 battery that exploded in plaintiff’s pocket, record failed to contain sufficient evidence to support Dist. Ct.’s finding that it had specific personal jurisdiction over defendant. Record showed that defendant was corporation organized in Republic of Korea with its headquarters and principal place of business located there. Moreover, defendant has no offices, warehouses, other places of business, employees, or agents in Indiana, Also, defendant is not licensed in any state of U.S., including Indiana. Dist. Ct. found that defendant had sufficient contacts with Indiana to permit exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over defendant, and that there was sufficient nexus between defendant’s marketing of instant 18650 battery in Indiana and plaintiff’s injuries. Ct. of Appeals, though, held that remand was required because record did not contain sufficient facts to determine whether requirements of stream-of-commerce theory applied to support exercise of specific personal jurisdiction, i.e., whether defendant was aware that its battery was marketed in Indiana. Ct. of Appeals also observed that Dist. Ct. needed to answer question as to whether defendant knew or expected that its 18650 battery reached Indiana consumers and what efforts it took to control distribution of said battery.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court