Everyone has a favorite state. Maybe it's where you grew up. Maybe it's where you went on vacation as a child. Maybe it's just the first state?
Not everyone is so fortunate to live in their favorite state -- but if you play your cards right, you can apparently choose to be sued there.
The issue came up last week in Guangzhou Lightsource Elecs. Ltd. v. Pine Locks, C.A. No. 24-543-JCB, D.I. 30 (D. Del. Aug 5, 2025). Pine Locks (incorporated on the Isle of Mad) had allegedly filed a complaint with Amazon requesting that some of Gaungzhou's (a Chinese company) products be taken down because they infringed Pine Locks' patents. Guangzhou then brought a DJ action in Delaware, and Pine Locks contested personal jurisdiction.
Most of the arguments on this were pretty standard PJ stuff -- no activities directed to the state, etc.
The twist came when Guangzhou argued that jurisdiction in Delaware was appropriate under 4(k)(2) which allows service to establish jurisdiction over someone “not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction."
In response, Pine Locks pointed to a case in Colorado filed in 2023 (more than a year before the instant case). There, the complaint against Pine Locks had alleged that the Colorado court "has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because of Defendant’s continuous and systemic contacts with the State of Colorado and this District . . . . " Pine Locks' answer had simply been "Admitted."
Accordingly, they argued that they had consented to general jurisdiction in Colorado, and thus that 4(k)(2) did not apply because they could be sued in Colorado.
Judge Barker agreed and transferred the case to Colorado:
Plaintiffs rely on In re Stingray IP Sols., LLC, for the proposition that a “defendant . . . cannot simply use a ‘unilateral state-ment of consent’ to preclude application of Rule 4(k)(2).” However, as defendant notes, that case specifically dealt with “unilateral, post-suit con-sent” that would effectively allow a defendant to defeat Rule 4(k)(2) and transfer a case to any preferred district in the United States. The situation here is distinguishable because defendant consented to jurisdiction in Colorado in a completely unrelated proceeding almost a year before the initiation of this lawsuit. Therefore, the court concludes that defendant has sufficiently established that it was subject to personal jurisdiction in Colorado at the inception of this action, thereby rendering personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2) improper.
Id. at 5 (internal citations omitted).
I was a bit surprised that I hadn't seen this particular issue come up before. The rule from Stingray, is pretty widely cited in any case where forum shopping is a concern. I suppose it does require a foreign defendant to be sued once in a place they like, and then consent to it wholeheartedly before being sued someplace less favorable, which . . . probably doesn't happen very often.
If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to receive free e-mail updates about new posts.
