The Court found that in this case, the burden on the defendant was severe based on both the geographic distance and legal dissimilarities between Japan and the United States. Cheng Shin was not a California resident, diminishing California's interest in the case. Cheng Shin also did not show that it would be inconvenienced if the case for indemnification against Asahi were heard in Japan or Taiwan instead of California. Finally, neither interstate efficiency nor interstate policy interests would be served by finding jurisdiction.
Because an assertion of jurisdiction would not be "fair play", the California Court of Appeal (California's Supreme Court) was reversed.
Texas Supreme Court holds that German manufacturer is subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas where manufacturer specifically targeted Texas as one of its marketplaces; Defendant's use of distributor-intermediary fails to insulate Defendant from Texas jurisdiction.(JURISDICTION (PERSONAL))
Mar 01, 2010; Spir Star AG (Defendant) is a German manufacturer of high-pressure hoses and fittings. The company set up a distributorship in...
In the Absence of Supreme Court Consensus, Personal Jurisdiction Premised on A Stream-of-Commerce Theory Is Assessed on A Case-by-Case Basis
Sep 26, 2012; In AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Technology Corp., No. 11-1306 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 24, 2012), and AFTG-TG, LLC v. Winbond Electronics...