The Personal Jurisdiction Pitfall When Unleashing Amazon's "APEX" Patent Predator

. . . Here, the APEX Agreement directed to SnapPower in Utah threatened automatic consequences (the proactive removal of Amazon sales listings), which if ignored would directly affect SnapPower's business operations in Utah. . . .

Introduction

In SnapRays, dba SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group, No. 2023-1184 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) (“Decision”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's ruling that declaratory judgment defendant and patentee Lighting Defense Group (“LDG”) was not subject to personal jurisdiction in the state of Utah. Acknowledging its prior precedent that the mere transmission of a “cease and desist” letter into the state of an accused infringer does not invoke that state's personal jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit nonetheless held that LDG purposefully directed its activities at SnapPower's home state of Utah by unleashing Amazon's Patent Evaluation Express (“APEX”) program.