Intellectual Property Law Blog 

The explosion of online marketplaces like Amazon, Temu, SHEIN, eBay, Walmart, Shopify storefronts, and innumerable drop-ship models, has forced federal courts to revisit old personal jurisdiction doctrines through a new lens. Plaintiffs suing foreign or out-of-state sellers increasingly argue that sales into the forum district via online platforms supply the “minimum contacts” necessary for specific jurisdiction. Defendants respond that single or sporadic transactions—often initiated by the plaintiff—cannot constitutionally drag them into distant courts.

The result is a highly fragmented landscape: some courts treat marketplace sales as intentional forum commercial activity, while others continue to demand targeting beyond mere availability.

Our IP litigation team successfully navigated personal jurisdictional issues in intellectual property cases across the country, and we wanted to share some insights from our recent experience.

Below is a survey of the dominant approaches across federal courts and the splits taking shape.

The Schedule A Model (N.D. Ill.)

The Northern District of Illinois has quietly become one of the most active federal intellectual property venues over the last decade, especially for trademark, copyright, domain/anti-counterfeiting, and online marketplace enforcement. One of the reasons is that courts there routinely hold that selling goods into the district through an online marketplace satisfies specific personal jurisdiction, even when the seller:

• has no physical U.S. presence,
• stores goods overseas,
• uses Amazon’s FBA logistics,
• lacks U.S. advertising, and
• transacts through platform intermediaries.

The reasoning is largely effects- and commerce-driven: if you sell products into Illinois, you’re purposefully availing yourself of Illinois markets. Judges also rely on foreseeability—the national reach of e-commerce makes Chicago no less foreseeable than New York or Los Angeles.

For example, the Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a Northern District of Illinois decision finding that a single Amazon sale by a China-based retailer was sufficient for personal jurisdiction in Illinois. NBA Properties, Incorporated v. HANWJH, 46 F.4th 614 (7th Cir. 2022). The court emphasized that the defendant had "established an online store, using a third-party retailer, Amazon.com" and "unequivocally asserted a willingness to ship goods to Illinois and established the capacity to do so." The court rejected categorical numerical rules, noting that "talismanic jurisdictional formulas" are not acceptable instruments for assessing personal jurisdiction. 

Sophisticated Commercial Vendors vs. Occasional Sellers

Federal district courts consistently distinguish between professional online sellers and casual users of e-commerce platforms. In NOCO Company v. Shenzhen Valuelink E-Commerce Co., Ltd., the Northern District of Ohio found personal jurisdiction where a California-based retailer generated $271,839 in Ohio sales over four years, representing 2.37% of its total Amazon sales. 550 F. Supp. 3d 488 (N.D. Ohio 2021). The court emphasized that "TII is a sophisticated online retailer, and its business with Ohio can fairly be described as 'regular'" and that "the fact that TII has relied on e-commerce platforms to cultivate its Ohio market does not shield it from a finding of purposeful availment." Id. at 497.

Courts distinguish these commercial operations from occasional sellers by examining factors including "the seller's identity (individual or a business entity), the nature of the website used, the defendant's total volume of online sales including sales outside the forum, the number or variety of products offered on the defendant's website, and the defendant's online advertising." Herbal Brands, Inc. v. Photoplaza, Inc., 72 F.4th 1085, 1094 (9th Cir. 2023).

Platform-Neutral Analysis vs. Zippo Sliding Scale

Some courts treat online marketplace platforms neutrally in jurisdictional analysis, focusing on seller conduct rather than platform characteristics. For example, the Ninth Circuit in Herbal Brands, Inc. v. Photoplaza, Inc. noted that "the fact that Defendants used Amazon storefronts instead of proprietary websites does not change our analysis" because defendants "store their products in Amazon fulfillment centers" while retaining "ownership of the goods" and the ability to "choose to end their relationship with Amazon at any time." 72 F.4th 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2023). The court analogized that "the use of Amazon's fulfillment service to handle shipping logistics does not alter our jurisdictional analysis any more than a seller's use of the post office to ship its products would affect the inquiry." Id.

Other courts focus on the extent of website interactivity under the Zippo sliding scale. For example, in NOCO Company v. Shenzhen Valuelink E-Commerce Co., Ltd., the court applied the Zippo "sliding scale" framework to determine when a defendant's online activities constitute purposeful availment, finding purposeful availment proper when websites manifest "a conscious choice to transact business with inhabitants of a forum state." 550 F.Supp.3d 488 (N.D. Ohio 2021).

Stream of Commerce vs. Direct Online Sales and Targeted Marketing

Some courts distinguish between traditional stream of commerce theories and direct online sales to forum residents. In NOCO Company v. Shenzhen Valuelink E-Commerce Co., Ltd., the court rejected the defendant's argument that it merely placed products in the stream of commerce, finding that the case involved TII's storefronts, which TII uses to sell its products directly to Ohio residents via the Amazon Marketplace. 550 F.Supp.3d 488 (N.D. Ohio 2021). The court emphasized that this was not a case "in which the defendant acted by placing a product in the stream of commerce, and the stream eventually swept defendant's product into the forum State." Id. at 496.

Other courts find that the defendant must have targeted forum residents in some way. For example, the Western District of Pennsylvania applies Third Circuit precedent to require “deliberate targeting of the forum” rather than mere efforts “to exploit a national market” to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. M. S. v. W. Power Sports, Inc., 512 F. Supp. 3d 604, 610 (W.D. Pa. 2021) (citing Shuker v. Smith & Nephew, PLC, 885 F.3d 760, 780 (3d Cir. 2018)).

Conclusion

The rise of online marketplaces has outpaced the law, forcing federal courts to adapt analog principles to digital commerce. For litigators, these splits mean that forum selection, platform architecture, and investigative strategy can make or break personal jurisdiction.

The Porter Hedges team has recently had success in navigating personal jurisdictional issues in intellectual property cases across the country. See Vitality Apparel Holdings, Inc. v. Buffbunny, LLC, No. 24-CV-01395-GPG-SBP, 2025 WL 2099818, at *4 (D. Colo. June 13, 2025); Bundoo Khan USA LLC v. Arrehman Arraheem Corp., No. 822CV00304DOCKES, 2022 WL 3574281, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 14, 2022).

For questions about personal jurisdiction arising from online marketplace sales, or intellectual property litigation issues more broadly, the Porter Hedges IP litigation team is available to assist.