Facts

Future Motion, Inc. is a company that markets and sells the ONEWHEEL line of self-balancing electronically motorized skateboards, along with related accessories, replacement parts, and merchandise. The skateboards contain processors and software incorporated into them that control various functions and safety features, including communications between the battery management system (BMS) processor and the main control of the skateboard. The controller is programmed to not allow the skateboard motor to operate unless it receives information from the BMS indicating that the battery is in a safe riding condition. The controller is also programmed to take action to avoid potential rider injury. Meanwhile, JW Battery, LLC is a company that advertises and sells a computer processor chip intended to circumvent the Future Motion safety measures through its website. The chip is known as the JWFFM Chip, with "FFM" signifying "F*ck Future Motion." The Chip intercepts communications between the BMS and the controller in the Future Motion skateboard and deletes information from the BMS that could indicate an unsafe riding condition. JW also offers stylized "JWXR" stickers through its website. Future Motion filed suit against JW Batteries LLC, alleging violations of the Copyright Act and Lanham Act.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the "JWXR" stickers incorporated Future Motion's distinctive, stylized XR trademark and created the false impression that JW is affiliated with Future Motion or that Future Motion sponsored or approved of its products in violation of the Lanham Act. Moreover, plaintiff asserted that JW circumvented a technological measure in violation of the Copyright Act because it prevents the battery from meeting plaintiff's safety requirements. Finally, plaintiff alleged that California courts have personal jurisdiction over the case because JW has communicated and conducted sales with both prospective and existing California customers.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over the case since plaintiff has merely sold products on the Internet on a national scale, which is not enough to show express aiming at California. Defendant denied all contentions in the complaint.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.