Telemedicine Solutions LLC v. WoundRight Technologies, LLC

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Telemedicine Solutions LLC and Defendant WoundRight Technologies, LLC are purveyors of electronic systems and products aimed at medical practitioners in the wound care field. Plaintiffs system is called WoundRounds; Defendant’s, WoundRight. In its twelve-count amended complaint against Defendant [27], Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has infringed and diluted Plaintiffs trademark; engaged in unfair competition, cyberpira-cy, and deceptive trade practices; disparaged and defamed Plaintiff; and tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs prospective economic advantage. Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule -of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), or for improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3). [28]. In the alternative, Defendant seeks to transfer venue to Wyoming pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) & 1406(a), and dismiss Counts X, XI, and XII of Plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). [28]. Plaintiff opposes the motion and requests leave to engage in “jurisdictional discovery to refute” affidavit testimony submitted by Defendant, to “determine how much WoundRight knew about WoundRounds (or Telemedicine), and [to ascertain] whether WoundRight has other minimum contacts with Illinois, in addition to its electronic entry into Illinois and its intentional tortious conduct! ] directed at Illinois and Illinois consumers.” [33] at 3, 11, 15; [40] at 2, 8.

For the reasons stated below, the Court concludes that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant and accordingly grants Defendant’s motion [28] and dismisses the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court respectfully denies Plaintiffs requests for jurisdictional discovery.

I. Background

For the purposes of the instant motion, the Court accepts as true the factual allegations relevant to jurisdiction made in Plaintiffs amended complaint, and draws all reasonable inferences in its favor. Cent. States, Se. & Sw. Area Pension Fund v. Phencorp Reinsurance Co., Inc., 440 F.3d 870, 878 (7th Cir.2006) The Court also resolves any disputes concerning relevant facts in Plaintiffs favor. Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773, 782 (7th Cir.2003). To the extent that Defendant has submitted affidavits opposing jurisdiction or contradicting Plaintiffs allegations, however, Plaintiff must go beyond the pleadings and submit affirmative evidence supporting the exercise of jurisdiction. Id. at 783.

*887Plaintiff is a limited liability company that was organized under the laws of Illinois in July 2005. [27] ¶¶ 3, 17. Its principal place of business is Schaumburg, Illinois. Id. ¶ 3. Soon after its organization, Plaintiff entered the wound care industry, promoting, marketing, selling, and providing services related to its “Wound Rounds” system, an electronic documentation and wound care management system that enables medical providers to identify and manage patients at risk for pressure ulcers. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff obtained and registered the domain name “wound-rounds.com” in February 2006, and thereafter augmented its online presence by using social media sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Linkedln, and Twitter. Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff made its “WoundRounds” software and hardware, as well as Internet-based health care information services, available “[a]t least as early as November 1, 2006.” Id. ¶¶ 19-20. Beginning in March 2007, Plaintiff added educational services such as webinars, seminars, teleconferences, and social media presentations to its ‘WoundRounds” offerings, id. ¶ 21, and has provided downloadable webi-nars since early 2010. Id. ¶ 22. ' Plaintiff recently secured federal trademark registrations for its ‘WOUND ROUNDS” system and stylized logo, and has applied for a federal trademark for another stylized version of its “WoundRounds” mark. Id. ¶ 23; id. Ex. 1.

Plaintiffs substantial investments into its product and marketing have paid off. Its ‘WoundRounds” marks have become well-known throughout the wound care industry as emanating from Plaintiff alone, id. ¶ 24, and have provided Plaintiff with a strong national reputation and considerable goodwill with an estimated worth in the millions. Id. ¶¶ 25-26.

Defendant is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Wyoming with its principal place of business in Laramie, Wyoming. Id. ¶2. Defendant uses the term “WoundRight” to denote its goods and services, which according to Plaintiff are “the same or nearly identical” to Plaintiffs “WoundRounds” goods and services. Id. ¶ 27. (Defendant!s affidavit describes its “WoundRight” products as “a complete mobile wound care solution that automate[s] assessment documentation for wounds, ostomies, and incontinence management.” [29-1] ¶ 8. Defendant’s “WoundRight” electronic application (“app”) is intended for use on mobile devices, id. ¶ 7, and it is available for download from third-party websites that can be accessed from Defendant’s website, “woun-drightapp.com.” [27] ¶ 33; [29-1] ¶¶20, 25-26, [29-2] ¶¶ 7-8. Defendant’s website, which was registered on May 15, 2012, [27] ¶ 32, can be accessed by customers anywhere in the United States, see [27] ¶ 33, but customers cannot actually download the WoundRight app directly from the website. See [27] ¶ 33; [29-1] ¶¶20, 25-26, [29-2] ¶¶ 7-8. Customers likewise cannot purchase supplemental “census credits” to expand the utility of the app without placing a telephone call to Defendant’s Wyoming office. [29-1] ¶¶ 25-27; [29-2] ¶¶7-15. Defendant does not have (and never has had) any physical presence in Illinois. [29-1] ¶¶ 31-36. Defendant never has sold any products or services to customers in Illinois. [29-1] ¶ 28. It has sent employees to demonstrate and sell its products at industry conferences around the country, but none of those conferences was in Illinois. See [27] ¶ 36; [29-1] ¶¶ 40-41. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s actions nonetheless specifically targeted the Illinois market for an electronic wound care and management software system. [27] ¶ 12.

Defendant, like Plaintiff, maintains a presence on the Internet beyond its website. Defendant uses social media, includ*888ing Facebook and Twitter, to communicate with potential customers throughout the United States. [27] ¶ 35; id. Ex. 7-8; [29-2] ¶¶ 19, 21. Through these social media channels, Defendant promotes its product and calls attention to the wound care field generally. For instance, in December 2012, Defendant tweeted, “Close the gap between research and clinical practice with WoundRight.” [27] ¶ 45; id. Ex. 10. This tweet included a link to an article authored by several individuals associated with Plaintiff (and expressly identified as such). [27] ¶ 45; id. Ex. 10. Defendant also uses social media channels to interact with individuals in a number of states, [27] ¶ 87, though it has not specifically targeted either its Facebook postings or Twitter tweets to consumers in -Illinois. [29-2] ¶ 19. For instance, on June 23, 2013 Defendant tweeted, “It was along day that was highlighted by a nurse from Johnston, IA. She uses W.R. daily and could not stop telling us how much she loves it. Made our day!!!” [27] ¶46; id. Ex. 11. And in February 2013, Defendant mentioned on its Facebook page that the sister of its CEO uses Defendant’s product in her “1,000 square mile” nursing practice based in Thurston, Nebraska. [27] ¶ 38; id. Ex. 9. Although Illinois theoretically could be within an area of this size, see [27] ¶ 38, Defendant has submitted affidavit testimony averring that the sister of its CEO “is not licensed as a nurse in any state other than Nebraska, [and] she does not work outside of the state of Nebraska.” [29-2] ¶ 5.

Defendant at some point purchased a Google AdWords ad that appeared as the top result when a user searched Google for the term “woundrounds.” [27] ¶28; id. Ex. 3. The text-only ad included a link to Defendant’s website and read, “Considering WoundRounds? — Don’t waste your time[.] Try the latest wound care app for free!” [27] Ex. 3. Plaintiff alleges that the Google ad “falsely indicates that Tel-emedicine’s products and/or services are a ‘waste of time’ and otherwise disparagingly suggests that Telemedicine’s products and/or services are poor, inferior in some unknown manner, should not be used, and/or would be a waste of time to use, when in fact they are not.” [27] ¶ 30.' Similarly, Plaintiff alleges, the Google ad “misrepresents the nature, characteristics, and/or qualities of Telemedicine and its goods and/or services.” Id. Defendant’s CEO contends in his affidavit that Defendant “has never placed any internet advertisements or sent any email advertisements that are specifically directed at or targeted to individuals or businesses located in Illinois.” [29-1] ¶ 38. As to the Google ad, he avers that “the advertisement was not targeted at Illinois individuals and/or businesses, the advertisement ran for only five days, and the advertisement will not be run again by Wound-Right.” [29-1] ¶ 39. The CEO further asserts that “[p]rior to the filing of this lawsuit, WoundRight was unaware of Tel-emedicine’s existence, was unaware that WoundRoundTM products and services were affiliated with Telemedicine, and was unaware that Telemedicine resided in Illinois and operated its business in Illinois.” [29-2] ¶ 17. Additionally, he avers that “WoundRight has not purposely exploited the Illinois market for its business, either by advertising its products and services on its web-site or otherwise.” [29-1] ¶ 46.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has transacted business in Illinois via its advertising, marketing, and solicitation activities; its website; and its placement of its product into the stream of commerce in Illinois. [27] ¶¶ 7-8. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant specifically targeted Plaintiff and its business in Illinois by using a confusingly similar’trademark, intentionally attempting to cause confusion or create *889a false association between its product and Plaintiff, misappropriating Plaintiffs Illinois clients and consumers, and willfully attempting to damage Plaintiff and its business. [27] ¶ 9. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Google ad specifically attacked Plaintiff, its reputation, and its goodwill in Illinois; targeted Plaintiffs customers or potential customers searching for Plaintiff or its product in Illinois; tortiously defamed Plaintiff; tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs prospective business advantage; and was directed at Illinois with the full knowledge that Plaintiff would be injured in Illinois. [27] ¶ 10. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant committed acts of unfair competition by “intentionally creating a false association Telemedicine in Illinois * * *, deceptively creating the false and/or mistaken consumer belief that that Defendant’s products and services emanate[ ] from Telemedicine in Illinois * * *, by attempting to misappropriate consumers in Illinois * * * searching the internet for Telemedicine in Illinois * * *, and otherwise damaging the business interests of Telemedicine in Illinois * * * * ” [27] ¶ 11.

II. Discussion

A. Personal Jurisdiction

Notwithstanding the parties’ apparent preference that the Court address the merits of'Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) arguments, see [29] at 8, [33] at 3-6; [35] at 1-4; [40] at 2-5, the Court resolves the question of personal jurisdiction first because “failure to address jurisdiction before addressing the merits of constitute^] error.” Yassan v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 708 F.3d 963, 967 n. 1 (7th Cir.2013) (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998)). Indeed, because “[p]ersonal jurisdiction refers to a court’s ‘power to bring a person into its adjudicative process,” N. Grain Mktg., LLC v. Greving, 743 F.3d 487, 491, 2014 WL 595767, at *3 (7th Cir.2014) (quoting BlacK’s Law Dictionary 930 (9th ed.2009)), and “principally protects the liberty of the nonresident defendant,” Walden v. Fiore, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014), it must be the “first and fundamental question” resolved, “even when not otherwise suggested, and without respect to the relation of the parties to it.” Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003 (quoting Great S. Fire Proof Hotel Co. v. Jones, 177 U.S. 449, 453, 20 S.Ct. 690, 44 L.Ed. 842 (1900)).

1. Legal Standard

Plaintiff asserts claims arising under the Lanham Act, Illinois statutory law, and the common law. The Lanham Act does not authorize nationwide service of process, so this Court sitting in Illinois may exercise jurisdiction over Defendant only if authorized both by the United States Constitution and Illinois law. be2 LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555, 558 (7th Cir.2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(1)(A); Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693, 700 (7th Cir.2010)). The Illinois long-arm statute “permits its courts to exercise personal jurisdiction on any basis permitted by the constitutions of both Illinois and the United States.” Id.; see 735 ILCS 5/2-209(c). Thus “the state statutory and federal constitutional inquiries merge.” Tamburo, 601 F.3d 693, 700 (7th Cir.2010).

The federal test for personal jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment authorizes a court to exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant only if the defendant has “certain minimum contacts with [the state] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. *890154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 468, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)). In other words, “it is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). The requirement that a defendant have “minimum contacts” with the forum ensures that a non-resident defendant will not be forced to litigate in a jurisdiction as a result of “random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts” with the forum or the unilateral activity of the plaintiff; the defendant “should reasonably anticipate being haled into court” there. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474-75, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Plaintiff relies exclusively on a theory of specific personal jurisdiction, see [33] at 7-11, which means that it must show that the alleged controversy between the parties “arise[s] out of’ or “relate[s] to” the defendant’s forum contacts in addition to establishing that minimum contacts exist. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984); see also Walden, 134 S.Ct. 1115 (“For a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State.”).

The purposeful availment inquiry “can appear in different guises,” Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 702 (quoting Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, 1071 (10th Cir.2008)), and this case presents two variations on the standard theme. First, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed several intentional torts (in addition to statutory and common law violations). The Seventh Circuit and the Supreme Court have held that “constitutionally sufficient contacts can be imputed to a defendant if the defendant is accused of committing an intentional tort by actions that are ‘expressly aimed’ at the forum state.” Mobile Anesthesiologists Chi., LLC v. Anesthesia Assocs. of Houston Metroplex, P.A., 623 F.3d 440, 444 (7th Cir.2010) (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-90, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984)); see Walden v. Fiore, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014) (“A forum State’s exercise of jurisdiction over an out-of-state intentional tortfeasor must be based on intentional conduct by the defendant that creates the necessary contacts with the forum.”). The Seventh Circuit has characterized this inquiry as an “express aiming” test, Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 697, and explained that it requires “(1) intentional conduct (or ‘intentional and allegedly tortious’ conduct; (2) expressly aimed at the forum state; (3) with the defendant’s knowledge that the effects would be felt — that is, plaintiff would be injured — in the forum state.” Id. at 703 (citing Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789-90, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984)); see also Mobile Anesthesiologists, 623 F.3d at 445. The “express aiming” test “focuses attention on whether the defendant intentionally aimed its conduct at the forum state, rather than on the possibly incidental and constitutionally irrelevant effects of that conduct on the plaintiff.” Mobile Anesthesiologists, 623 F.3d at 445 n. 1. Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “[t]he proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant’s conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way.” Walden, 134 S.Ct. 1115.

The Supreme Court also has emphasized that the “express aiming” test is not an alternative to the minimum contacts *891inquiry. As the Court explained last month in Walden, “[t]hese same principles apply when intentional torts are involved. In that context, it is likewise insufficient to rely on a defendant’s random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts, or on the unilateral activity of a plaintiff. A forum State’s exercise of jurisdiction over an out-of-state intentional tortfeasor must be based on intentional conduct by the defendant that creates the necessary contacts with the forum.” Walden, 134 S.Ct. 1115 (quotations and citation omitted)). In the words of the Seventh Circuit, the “express aiming” test is “merely one means of satisfying the traditional due process standard set out in International Shoe and its familiar progeny.” Mobile Anesthesiologists, 623 F.3d at 445. Thus, to the extent that the “express aiming” test applies to this mixed-claims case, it is part of the broader minimum contacts query.

The second wrinkle in this case is that Defendant’s alleged contacts with the forum state occurred almost exclusively via the Internet. The Seventh Circuit long has been “hesit[ant] to fashion a special jurisdictional test for Internet-based based cases,” Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 703 n. 7, and indeed has concluded that “[u]sing a separate test for Internet-based contacts would be inappropriate” because the traditional minimum contacts analysis “remains up to this more modern task.” uBid, Inc. v. The GoDaddy Group, Inc., 623 F.3d 421, 431 n. 1 (7th Cir.2010). Nonetheless, in cases in which the defendant’s alleged contacts with the forum state occurred online, the Seventh Circuit has noted that the relevant inquiry typically “boils down” to whether the defendant has purposely exploited or in some way targeted the forum state’s market. be2 LLC, 642 F.3d at 558-59. “If the defendant merely operates a website, even a ‘highly interactive’ website, that is accessible from, but does not target, the forum state, then the defendant may not be haled into court in that state without offending the Constitution.” Id. at 559; see also Illinois v. Hemi Grp., LLC, 622 F.3d 754, 760 (7th Cir.2010) (“Courts should be careful in resolving questions of personal jurisdiction involving online contacts to ensure that a defendant is not haled into court simply because the defendant owns or operates a website that is accessible in the forum state, even if that site is ‘interactive.’ ”). Thus, “[a] plaintiff cannot satisfy the Calder standard [i.e., the “express aiming” test] simply by showing that the defendant maintained a website accessible to residents of the forum state and alleging that the defendant caused harm through that website.” Mobile Anesthesiologists, 623 F.3d at 446. That is true even where the defendant maintains its website after being placed on notice of the allegedly harmed entity’s identity, location, and ownership of a similar trademark. See id. at 444; cf. Walden, 134 S.Ct. 1115 (“Petitioner’s actions in Georgia did not create sufficient contacts with Nevada simply because he allegedly directed his conduct at plaintiffs whom he knew had Nevada connections.”).

If minimum contacts related to the suit are present, before exercising jurisdiction the Court also must consider whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Burger King, 471 U.S. at 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (quoting Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 320). “Thus, courts in ‘appropriate cases’ may evaluate ‘the burden on the defendant,’ ‘the forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute,’ ‘the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief,’ ‘the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies,’ and ‘the shared interest of the several States in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.’ ” Burger *892King, 471 U.S. at 477, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 292, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)). These considerations are sometimes used to establish the reasonableness of jurisdiction in lieu of a strong showing of minimum contacts. Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (citing Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 780, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984)).

Where, as here, the issue of personal jurisdiction is raised by a motion to dismiss and is. decided on the basis of written materials, Plaintiff has the burden of making a prima facie case of jurisdictional facts. Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 700. Jurisdictional allegations pleaded in the complaint are accepted as true unless proved otherwise by affidavits or exhibits. See Purdue Research Found. v. Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A., 338 F.3d 773, 782 (7th Cir.2003). Plaintiff is entitled to the resolution in its favor of all disputes concerning relevant facts presented in the record. Id. That said, Plaintiff may not merely rest on the allegations in its amended complaint; “once the defendant has submitted affidavits or other evidence in opposition to the exercise of jurisdiction, the plaintiff must go beyond the pleadings and submit affirmative evidence supporting the exercise of jurisdiction.” Id. at 783.

2. Analysis

Here, Defendant maintains a website, uses social media, attends industry conferences, and ran a Google ad. Plaintiff contends that these activities subject Defendant to personal jurisdiction in Illinois because it intentionally has:

(1)used Plaintiffs trade name and trademark as a search keyword in the Google ad with the intention of diverting Plaintiffs customers and potential customers to its own website;

(2) defamed Plaintiff and its product in the Google ad by suggesting that Plaintiffs product is a waste of time;

(3) disparaged Plaintiffs goods and/or services in the Google ad by indicating that they are a waste of time;

(4) adopted and used a confusingly similar name to Plaintiffs trade name and trademark and misappropriated the goodwill associated with them; and

(5) attempted to create actual confusion to deceive customers, consumers, industry personnel, and the general public as to the source of Defendant’s goods and/or services and their affiliation or connection with Plaintiffs’. .

at 7. These five alleged acts essentially collapse into two actions on Defendant’s part: running the Google ad and using the name and mark “WoundRight” across several platforms. Plaintiff contends that these contacts are sufficient.to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction in Illinois under Tamburo v. Dworkin, 601 F.3d 693 (7th Cir.2010), and its articulation of the “express aiming” test originally established in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984). See [33] at 9 (“Jurisdiction is proper because WoundRight’s express aim was to tortiously interfere with an Illinois company’s sales and because the injury occurred in Illinois.”). Plaintiff relies almost exclusively on Tamburo to support its jurisdictional argument. See [33] at 7-11; [40] at 5-7. (It cites a portion of Tamburo’s discussion of Janmark, Inc. v. Reidy, 132 F.3d 1200 (7th Cir.1997), see [33] at 9, and independently cites Janmark in its sur-reply. See [40] at 6.). However, Tambu-ro is but one of several Seventh Circuit cases clarifying and applying Calder’s “express aiming” test. A close examination of some of those cases leads the Court to conclude that Defendant’s contacts with Illinois do not surpass the requisite thresh*893old to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case.

As explained in Tamburo (and several other Seventh Circuit cases), the Supreme Court’s decision in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984), “provides some contours for the ‘purposeful direction’ requirement in the context of a suit alleging intentional torts.” Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 702; see also Walden, 134 S.Ct. 1115 (“Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804, illustrates the application of these principles.”). In Calder, plaintiff Shirley Jones of Partridge Family fame sued defendants National Enquirer, Inc., its local distributing company, and a National Enquirer reporter and editor after they wrote, edited, published, and distributed an allegedly libelous article about her. See Calder, 465 U.S. at 784-86, 104 S.Ct. 1482. The National Enquirer is based in Florida, and the article was written and published

there. Plaintiff sued in California, however, which is where she lived, and where 600,000 copies of the issue containing the article were distributed. National Enquirer, Inc., and the local distributing company acceded to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them, but the writer and editor of the story argued that they were not subject to personal jurisdiction in California because they were not responsible for the magazine’s distribution in California, they had no economic stake in its sales there, and the foreseeability of the article’s effect on Jones was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction. See id. at 785-87, 104 S.Ct. 1482; see also Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 702. The Supreme Court rejected the writer’s and editor’s arguments, explaining,

Petitioner South wrote and Petitioner Calder edited an article that they knew would, have a potentially devastating impact upon [Jones]. And they knew that the brunt of that injury would be felt by [Jones] in the state in the State in which she lives and works and in which the National Enquirer has its largest circulation. Under the circumstances, petitioners must ‘reasonably anticipate being haled into court there’ to answer for the truth of the statements made in their article. An individual injured in California need not go to Florida to seek redress from persons who, though remaining in Florida, knowingly cause the injury in California.

Calder, 465 U.S. at 789-90, 104 S.Ct. 1482 (citations omitted). The Supreme Court recently reiterated that “[t]he crux of Calder was that the reputation-based ‘effects’ of the alleged libel connected the defendants to California, not just to the plaintiff.” Walden, 134 S.Ct. 1115.

The Seventh Circuit has distilled from the Supreme Court’s analysis in Calder a three-pronged “express aiming” test for personal jurisdiction in the context of intentional torts: “(1) intentional conduct (or ‘intentional and allegedly tortious conduct’); (2) expressly aimed at the forum state; (3) with the defendant’s knowledge that the effects would be felt — that is, the plaintiff would be injured — in the forum state.” Tamburo, 601 F.3d at 703. The court has recognized that although these requirements are fairly straightforward, applying them in specific cases, particularly those alleging tortious acts committed over the Internet, can be challenging. Id.; see also uBid, Inc. v. The GoDaddy Grp., Inc., 623 F.3d 421, 433 (7th Cir.2010) (“We recognize that our analysis here does not provide crisp, bright lines for district courts and litigants, but this is a field of law where the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused opportunities to draw 'such bright lines.”). Indeed, the Seventh Circuit has acknowledged that its own application of the test has evolved over time. See Mobile Anesthesiologists,