Background
Nifty Home Products sued multiple Chinese companies for selling counterfeit versions of its “BACON BIN” kitchen products through Amazon, AliExpress, and other e-commerce platforms. After the defendants failed to appear, the district court entered default judgments. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded, directing the district court to more carefully examine two issues: personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendants and the adequacy of the damages analysis.
On remand, the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to prosecute, while Nifty renewed its motion for default judgment.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Schwab reinstated the default judgment on all grounds.
Personal jurisdiction: The court found jurisdiction established through two independent bases. First, the defendants sold and shipped infringing products directly into the Western District of Pennsylvania through Amazon, AliExpress, and other platforms, satisfying traditional minimum contacts analysis. Second, even if forum-specific contacts were insufficient, Rule 4(k)(2) — the federal long-arm statute for foreign defendants — independently established jurisdiction. Under Rule 4(k)(2), personal jurisdiction exists over a foreign defendant if (1) the claim arises under federal law, (2) the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction, and (3) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with due process. All three elements were met.
Failure to prosecute: The defendants argued the case should be dismissed for delay under the six Poulis factors. The court disagreed, finding that factors 1, 4, 5, and 6 weighed against dismissal. Any delay was attributable to the appellate proceedings, not plaintiff inaction.
Default judgment: Having confirmed jurisdiction and rejected the motion to dismiss, the court entered renewed default judgment. A separate damages hearing was ordered, with exhibit lists and damage witnesses due by May 5, 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 4(k)(2) is a powerful backstop for cross-border IP cases. When a foreign defendant sells counterfeits into the U.S. through e-commerce platforms but targets no specific state, Rule 4(k)(2) fills the jurisdictional gap.
- E-commerce sales establish minimum contacts. Selling and shipping infringing products through Amazon and AliExpress into a specific district is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over a foreign seller.
- Appellate delay does not justify dismissal for failure to prosecute. Time consumed by an appeal does not count against the plaintiff under the Poulis factors.
Why It Matters
Cross-border e-commerce counterfeiting remains one of the most persistent challenges in IP enforcement. This ruling reinforces that U.S. courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign sellers who use Amazon, AliExpress, and similar platforms to sell counterfeit goods into the United States — even when those sellers have no physical presence in the forum. For brand owners combating overseas counterfeiting, the Rule 4(k)(2) analysis provides a reliable path to jurisdiction when state long-arm statutes fall short.