Identical‐Product‐Plus‐In‐State‐Injury: Expanding Specific Personal Jurisdiction Under Ford
Introduction
In Ethridge v. Samsung SDI Co. (5th Cir. 2025), a Texas resident sued Samsung SDI, a South Korean battery manufacturer, after one of its "18650" lithium‐ion cells exploded in his pocket. Although Samsung had no physical presence in the United States, it sold batteries to Texas‐based companies (Black & Decker, HP, Dell) for power tools and laptop repairs. The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; the Fifth Circuit reversed. The central dispute: whether Texas courts may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant whose in‐state contacts consist of industrial sales of the identical product that injured an in‐state consumer via an unauthorized third‐party reseller.
Summary of the Judgment
The Fifth Circuit held that:
- Texas’s long‐arm statute permits jurisdiction to the constitutional limit.
- Under the Fourteenth Amendment (International Shoe), specific personal jurisdiction requires (1) purposeful availment, (2) a claim that arises out of or relates to those contacts, and (3) fairness.
- Samsung purposefully availed itself of Texas by multi‐year supply contracts with Black & Decker, HP, and Dell—deliberately exploiting a Texas market for its 18650 batteries.
- Applying Ford Motor Co. v. Montana (“related to” test), Ethridge’s injury from the same model battery he used in Texas sufficed to show his claim “relates to” Samsung’s Texas contacts—even though he bought the cell through a Wyoming seller.
- Jurisdiction is fair: Texas has an interest in providing a forum to its injured residents and Samsung can defend itself here.
- The district court’s dismissal was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945): Introduced “minimum contacts” and due‐process limits on jurisdiction.
- Bristol‐Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court (2017): Limited specific jurisdiction to claims connected to forum‐state contacts.
- Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021): Clarified “arise out of or relate to” by approving jurisdiction when a defendant sells a non‐insignificant volume of identical products in the forum and the plaintiff’s in‐forum injury involves the same model.
- Walden v. Fiore (2014): Emphasized defendant‐focused “purposeful availment” and that plaintiff‐forum contacts alone cannot confer jurisdiction.
- Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) and Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown (2011): Distinguished general jurisdiction (“at home”) from specific jurisdiction.
- World‐Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980), Hanson v. Denckla (1958), Keeton v. Hustler Magazine (1984) and Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985): Explored fair warning, “random or fortuitous” contacts, and the “fair and reasonable” inquiry.
Legal Reasoning
1. Purposeful Availment. Samsung’s multi‐year shipping of 18650 cells into Texas for incorporation into tool‐pack and laptop batteries constituted deliberate market exploitation of Texas—satisfying the first Ford prong.
2. Relatedness (“Arise Out of or Relate To”). Under Ford’s “same‐product‐plus‐in‐state‐injury” approach, Samsung’s Texas sales of identical 18650 cells to corporate customers relate to Ethridge’s injury from an 18650 cell he used and was injured by in Texas, even though his purchase was through a third‐party reseller. The court rejected Samsung’s “different‐markets” theory (industrial vs. consumer sales), holding that an intervening third party cannot defeat jurisdiction when the same model product that Samsung shipped to Texas injured the plaintiff there.
3. Fairness and Reasonableness. Texas holds a strong interest in providing a forum for its citizens injured within the State; Ethridge has an interest in vindicating his rights at home; litigation in Texas poses no undue burden on Samsung.
Impact
- Clarifies that foreign manufacturers need not sell directly to end‐users to be subject to specific jurisdiction when they supply identical products into a forum, and those products cause in‐state injuries.
- Expands Ford’s reach to industrial‐channel sales and emphasizes that the “related to” test is not a loose causation proxy but requires a product‐model match plus in‐state injury.
- Warns manufacturers that structuring distribution to avoid direct‐to‐consumer sales may not foreclose jurisdiction if the same products enter the forum through other channels and injure local users.
- Encourages state courts to similarly apply Ford’s “identical‐product‐plus‐in‐state‐injury” standard to product‐liability suits against nonresident defendants.
Complex Concepts Simplified
- Personal Jurisdiction
- The court’s authority over a defendant based on the defendant’s connections to the forum.
- Purposeful Availment
- The defendant’s deliberate engagement with a forum’s market, such that it received benefits and could foresee being sued there.
- Specific vs. General Jurisdiction
- General jurisdiction arises from a defendant’s “at‐home” status; specific jurisdiction arises only for claims related to the defendant’s forum contacts.
- “Arise Out Of or Relate To”
- Ford clarified that “arise out of” demands causation, while “relate to” demands a close product‐model match and an in‐forum injury, even if causation is indirect.
Conclusion
Key Takeaways:
- The Fifth Circuit adopts an “identical‐product‐plus‐in‐state‐injury” approach under Ford to satisfy the relatedness prong of specific jurisdiction.
- Foreign manufacturers who purposefully ship a non‐insignificant volume of a product model into a forum may be haled into that forum if a local resident is injured by the same model.
- Defendants can no longer rely solely on “industrial‐channel only” distribution to avoid jurisdiction when end‐users import and are harmed by identical products in‐state.
- The decision reinforces predictability and notice by tying jurisdiction to a clear set of factors: purposeful availment, product‐model alignment, and in‐state injury.
Comments