The issue of personal jurisdiction over websites, also known as "personal jurisdiction," is a complex topic in internet law due to the internet's borderless nature. A website accessible globally raises questions about a court's authority to adjudicate specific disputes. In the case of International Shoe Co. v. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court established the "minimum contacts" principle, requiring defendants to have sufficient ties to the jurisdiction for the court's authority to be legitimate.

 

Websites are typically categorized into three types: passive websites that only display information without allowing user interaction, making them less likely to be subject to jurisdiction; interactive websites that enable information exchange between users and the host, with jurisdiction depending on the level of interaction and the nature of the exchange; and commercial websites, such as online stores, that conduct business over the internet. Courts are more likely to assert jurisdiction over commercial websites that engage in contracts with residents of the state and involve knowledgeable and repeated internet transmissions.

​

Specifically, the more connections a cross-border merchant has with the plaintiff's location, the more likely a court is to determine that the "minimum contacts" principle is satisfied, thus asserting jurisdiction over the merchant. Whether a court has personal jurisdiction based on a single transaction remains a contentious legal issue. However, it is clear that courts are more inclined to assert jurisdiction if the merchant has more transactions within the jurisdiction, engages in targeted advertising and marketing there, or shows a clear intent to do business in that area.

The federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over intellectual property cases ensures that these matters are handled professionally and consistently within the appropriate judicial framework. This is crucial for protecting the integrity of intellectual property rights and promoting innovation.

• Constitutional Basis: The U.S. Constitution empowers the federal government to create laws regarding copyrights and patents. Therefore, most cases related to intellectual property fall under the jurisdiction of federal courts.

• Patent Cases: Under U.S. law, all patent cases, including disputes over patent infringement and patent validity, must be filed in federal courts. This requirement stems from patents being granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), a federal agency.

• Copyright cases typically fall under the jurisdiction of federal courts, encompassing copyright infringement and other legal issues related to copyright, as copyright laws are established under federal legislation.

• Trademark cases: Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases involving federally registered trademarks. Additionally, under the Lanham Act, federal courts can also handle some cases involving unregistered trademarks.

• Concurrent jurisdiction: While federal courts have jurisdiction over most intellectual property cases, state courts may also have concurrent jurisdiction in certain types of IP-related cases, such as those involving trade secret infringement.

• For international intellectual property cases, federal courts also hold subject matter jurisdiction, especially when these cases involve U.S. law or international treaties. This ensures that cases with global implications are adjudicated within a legal framework familiar with the complexities of international law and its intersection with U.S. intellectual property regulations.

• In some instances, even if intellectual property cases are initially filed in state courts, they may be transferred to federal courts, especially when federal issues are involved. This allows for cases that touch on federal laws or principles to be adjudicated in a court system equipped to handle such matters.