131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011)
In October 2001, Robert Nicastro suffered a serious hand injury while operating a metal-shearing machine at his workplace in Saddle Brook, New Jersey, and the machine in question was a McIntyre Model 640 Shear manufactured in England by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd., which is incorporated and operates in Nottingham, England.1 Nicastro's employer, Curcio Scrap Metal, had purchased the machine from McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd., an independent Ohio-based distributor that sold J. McIntyre products throughout the United States, and J. McIntyre had no office, employees, property, or tax obligations in New Jersey while also refraining from advertising or shipping products directly to the state.
J. McIntyre sold machines to the Ohio distributor, which then resold them to U.S. customers including the single machine that reached New Jersey, and the company held both United States and European patents on its recycling technology. J. McIntyre's representatives attended scrap recycling industry trade shows in cities such as Chicago, Las Vegas, New Orleans, Orlando, San Diego, and San Francisco, yet the conventions never took place in New Jersey while the distributor attended shows that included some in New Jersey.2
Nicastro filed a products-liability action against J. McIntyre in New Jersey state court, and the trial court granted J. McIntyre's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction after finding that the defendant had no contacts with New Jersey apart from the machine ending up there.3 The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal, and the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the reversal while the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the New Jersey Supreme Court's jurisdictional determination.4
Whether New Jersey courts may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a British manufacturer of industrial machinery, consistent with the Due Process Clause, when the manufacturer sold its products through an independent U.S. distributor and one machine reached New Jersey?5
Due process requires that a defendant purposefully avail itself of the forum state.6 The defendant must direct its activities there in a manner that invokes the benefits and protections of the state's laws.7 A stream-of-commerce theory alone does not displace this requirement in products-liability cases.8
No. The rule requires purposeful availment directed at the specific forum.9 J. McIntyre had no office, employees, property, or advertising in New Jersey and did not ship products there or direct its independent Ohio distributor to target New Jersey.10 The single machine that reached the state through the distributor's independent sales efforts, combined with attendance at trade shows outside New Jersey, does not manifest an intention to submit to New Jersey's authority.11
The New Jersey Supreme Court's reliance on the nationwide distribution system and foreseeability of sales in any state therefore fails to satisfy the purposeful-availment standard.12
New Jersey courts may not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over J. McIntyre consistent with the Due Process Clause.13
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Alito
Justice Breyer concurred in the judgment while emphasizing adherence to precedent without adopting a broad new rule for modern commerce.14 The record showed no regular flow or regular course of sales in New Jersey and no something more such as special state-related design or marketing that would warrant jurisdiction over the British manufacturer.15 Precedents such as World-Wide Volkswagen and Asahi require more than a single isolated sale even when accompanied by national distribution efforts, and Nicastro failed to meet his burden to demonstrate constitutionally proper jurisdiction on the facts found by the New Jersey courts.16
He declined to adopt a broad new rule without fuller consideration of modern commercial realities because the case does not present issues arising from recent changes in commerce and communication.17
Joined by Justice Sotomayor And Justice Kagan
Justice Ginsburg dissented on the ground that J. McIntyre targeted the entire United States market through its exclusive distributor and regular attendance at national trade shows.18 It thereby purposefully availed itself of every state in which its machines were sold by deliberately arranging a nationwide distribution system.19
The place of injury within the United States is an appropriate forum for a products-liability claim against a foreign manufacturer that deliberately sought nationwide sales, and the majority's approach improperly insulates such manufacturers from accountability in the courts of states where their products cause injury.20