Skip to Main Content


Putting the "Specific" Back in Specific Jurisdiction: The Importance of Claim-by-Claim Jurisdictional Analysis in a Post-BMS Landscape

January 2018 - Drug & Device Law Blog
Social Logo Social Logo Social Logo

by Richard Dean and Nicholas Janizeh

In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (“BMS”), the United States Supreme Court concluded that specific jurisdiction must be premised on a defendant’s in-state conduct giving rise to a plaintiff’s alleged injury. The Court explained that plaintiffs therefore could not pursue their claims in a state in which they did not reside or in which they were not injured if a defendant conducted no activity in that state connected to the injury. That other in-state plaintiffs may be advancing similar claims as part of a coordinated proceeding did nothing to change this analysis.

Click here to read the blog post.

Perspectives on employee benefits, executive compensation and ERISA litigation to help you attract and retain talent.
lingua negoti
The language of business.
Ohio Environmental
Insights and commentary for the business and legal community.