FRCP 12(b)(2)

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. 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. 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. 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.

Zippo Manufacturing Company is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Bradford, Pennsylvania, where it manufactures Zippo tobacco lighters. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Sunnyvale, California. Dot Com operates an Internet website and news service and holds the domain names zippo.com, zippo.net, and zipponews.com. Dot Com's website provides information about the company, advertisements, and an online application for its Internet news service. The service offers three membership levels, with paid subscribers receiving passwords to access newsgroup messages stored on servers in California after submitting personal information and paying by credit card. Approximately 3,000 of Dot Com's 140,000 paying subscribers reside in Pennsylvania. Dot Com has also entered into agreements with seven Internet access providers in Pennsylvania, two of which are in the Western District, allowing their subscribers to access the news service. These contacts occurred through the Internet, as Dot Com maintains no offices, employees, or agents in Pennsylvania. Manufacturing filed a five-count complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging trademark dilution, infringement, and false designation under federal law, as well as state law claims, based on Dot Com's use of the word "Zippo" in its domain names, website, and newsgroup message headers. Dot Com moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case.

Kathy Keeton, a resident of New York who assists in producing a magazine bearing her name in several places crediting her with editorial and other work, sued Hustler Magazine, Inc., an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in California, in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. She alleged jurisdiction by reason of diversity of citizenship and claimed to have been libeled in five separate issues of the magazine published between September 1975 and May 1976. Prior to the New Hampshire action, Keeton had initially brought suit for libel and invasion of privacy in Ohio, where the magazine was published, but her libel claim was dismissed as barred by the Ohio statute of limitations and her invasion-of-privacy claim was dismissed as barred by the New York statute of limitations. Hustler Magazine's contacts with New Hampshire consist of the sale of some 10,000 to 15,000 copies of the magazine in that State each month. Keeton's only connection with New Hampshire is the circulation there of copies of the magazine that she assists in producing. The District Court dismissed her suit because it believed that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbade the application of New Hampshire’s long-arm statute to acquire personal jurisdiction over the respondent. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal in 1982. The Court of Appeals observed that the single publication rule would require awarding damages caused in all states. It also stressed New Hampshire’s unusually long six-year limitations period for libel actions. New Hampshire was the only State where the suit would not have been time-barred when filed in October 1980. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1983.

On April 21, 1975, the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Verlinden B.V., a Dutch corporation with its principal offices in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, entered into a contract providing for the purchase of 240,000 metric tons of cement by Nigeria. The parties agreed that the contract would be governed by the laws of the Netherlands and that disputes would be resolved by arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, France. The contract required the Nigerian Government to establish an irrevocable, confirmed letter of credit for the total purchase price through Slavenburg’s Bank in Amsterdam. According to Verlinden’s amended complaint, the Central Bank of Nigeria, an instrumentality of Nigeria, improperly established an unconfirmed letter of credit payable through Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. in New York. Verlinden subcontracted with a Liechtenstein corporation, Interbuco, to purchase the cement needed to fulfill the contract. In mid-September 1975, Central Bank unilaterally directed its correspondent banks, including Morgan Guaranty, to adopt a series of amendments to all letters of credit issued in connection with the cement contracts and directly notified the suppliers that payment would be made only for those shipments approved by Central Bank two months before their arrival in Nigerian waters. Verlinden sued Central Bank in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that Central Bank’s actions constituted an anticipatory breach of the letter of credit. Verlinden asserted jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1330. Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. The District Court held that a federal court may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over a suit brought by a foreign corporation against a foreign sovereign, but after considering each of the exceptions to immunity upon which Verlinden relied, the court concluded that none applied and dismissed the action. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed on different grounds, agreeing that the Act permitted actions by foreign plaintiffs but holding that the Act exceeded the scope of Article III. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.