Smarthealth Incorporated v. Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Smarthealth Incorporated,
Plaintiff,
v.
Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-00115-PHX-JJT
ORDER
The Court now resolves Defendant Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB’s Motion
for Reconsideration (Doc. 60), to which Plaintiff Smarthealth Incorporated responded
(Doc. 64).
I. BACKGROUND
The Court already recounted the facts that gave rise to this dispute in its earlier Order
(Doc. 58). It is enough to recognize here that Smarthealth, an Arizona entity that
manufactures and sells patch tests to diagnose allergic contact dermatitis, competes with
Chemotechnique, a Swedish entity1 that manufactures its own allergy testing products.
Chemotechnique maintains no place of business in the United States, has no employees,
bank accounts or property in the United States, and does not pay taxes, register to do
business, or maintain sales contracts with anyone in the United States. Its products are
distributed to the United States and elsewhere by Canadian-based distributor Dormer.
1 Also party to this matter is Dormer Laboratories Incorporated, but its role and conduct
underlying the instant action is not relevant to this Order.
Case 2:25-cv-00115-JJT Document 65 Filed 09/08/26 Page 1 of 8

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Chemotechnique’s business developer, David Alsheimer-Niklasson, avers that
Chemotechnique has no involvement in or control over the marketing materials and
website that Dormer uses to sell its products. (Doc. 12-1 ¶¶ 10–13.) Chemotechnique’s
only independent marketing efforts, according to Mr. Alsheimer-Niklasson, include
maintaining a passive informational website, circulating a quarterly e-newsletter to
subscribers around the world, and posting on social media accounts. (Doc. 12-1 ¶ 15.)
Mr. Alsheimer-Niklasson also acknowledges that in the last decade Chemotechnique’s
staff attended eight trade shows held in major U.S. cities where members of industry-
leading groups meet and lecturers share relevant research. (Doc. 12-1 ¶ 16.) At these trade
shows, Chemotechnique “distributes its yearly product catalogue and leaflet to
international participants,” examples of which are attached to Mr. Alsheimer-Niklasson’s
declaration. (Doc. 12-1 at 11–112, 128–34.)
Smarthealth sues Chemotechnique and Dormer on three claims: (1) false advertising
under the Lanham Act; (2) common law unfair competition; and (3) tortious interference
with contractual relations. (Doc. 36 ¶¶ 101–17.) The crux of Smarthealth’s claims is that
Chemotechnique and Dormer are using false or misleading statements in their
advertisements that give consumers the wrong impression that Chemotechnique’s products
are licensed by the FDA for sale in the United States. (Doc. 36 ¶¶ 1–5.) Chemotechnique
moved to dismiss Smarthealth’s claims for lack of personal jurisdiction (Doc. 12), to which
Smarthealth responded (Resp.), Chemotechnique replied (Doc. 51), and both parties sur-
replied. (Docs. 56–57).
The Court previously denied Chemotechnique’s dismissal motion, finding that
Smarthealth had established that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Chemotechnique
based on its distribution of yearly product catalogues and leaflets at trade shows held in the
United States that marketed its products as “high quality” and the “most advanced.” (Doc.
58 at 5–12.)
Chemotechnique moved for reconsideration of that Order (Doc. 60) and correctly
noted that this Court already determined that particular language (e.g., high quality, most
Case 2:25-cv-00115-JJT Document 65 Filed 09/08/26 Page 2 of 8

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
advanced) was “non-actionable puffery” in a separate ruling on Dormer’s dismissal motion
(see Doc. 28). Chemotechnique argues that personal jurisdiction cannot lie based on non-
actionable conduct. (Doc. 60 at 3–4.) In response, Smarthealth argues that reconsideration
is not warranted because Chemotechnique’s conduct still provides a sufficient basis for this
Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Chemotechnique. Maybe so, but the Court
ultimately agrees with Chemotechnique that non-actionable puffery cannot form the basis
of personal jurisdiction and that error warrants reconsideration of the parties’ briefing.
Lerner & Rowe PC v. Brown Engstrand & Shelly LLC, 684 F. Supp. 3d 953, 956 (D. Ariz.
2023), aff’d, 119 F.4th 711 (9th Cir. 2024) (granting reconsideration and noting “the
decision to revise a prior order is within the Court’s discretion”).
The Court now considers anew the parties’ briefing, including their respective
papers submitted on the issue of reconsideration, and finds this matter appropriate for
resolution without oral argument. See LRCiv 7.2(f).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
In its prior order, the Court extensively set forth the standard governing personal
jurisdiction at the dismissal stage, and those principles apply in equal force here. (Doc. 58
at 3–4.) As relevant to this Order, the parties’ jurisdictional dispute turns on whether the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over Chemotechnique comports with due process, or put
another way, whether Chemotechnique has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum
such that “maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (citation
modified). The focus of that analysis is “on the relationship among the defendant, the
forum, and the litigation.” Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F.4th 739, 750 (9th Cir. 2025).
Whether a defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum turns on three
elements. Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp., 873 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2017). First, the
defendant “must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with
the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself
of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and
Case 2:25-cv-00115-JJT Document 65 Filed 09/08/26 Page 3 of 8

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
protections of its laws.” Id. Second, “the claim must be one which arises out of or relates
to the defendant’s forum-related activities.” Id. And third, “the exercise of jurisdiction must
comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.” Id. The plaintiff
bears the burden of satisfying the first two elements while the defendant bears the burden
of negating the third. Id. All three elements are required for jurisdiction to lie. Id.
At the motion to dismiss stage, “the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that
the court has jurisdiction” and “need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional
facts to withstand the motion” when, as here, no evidentiary hearing is held. In re W. States
Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716, 741 (9th Cir. 2013), aff’d sub nom.
Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. 373 (2015). The facts alleged in the complaint are
generally accepted as true unless controverted by affidavit. Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech.
Assocs., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1977). But when facts contained in the parties’
affidavits conflict, that conflict must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. Rio Props., Inc. v.
Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1019 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
A. Purposeful Direction
To meet the first element of the minimum contacts test, the plaintiff must show the
defendant “either (1) purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities
in the forum, or (2) purposefully directed his activities towards the forum.” Pebble Beach
Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation modified). When, as here, a
plaintiff’s claims sound in tort, courts apply the purposeful direction test. Herbal Brands,
Inc. v. Photoplaza, Inc., 72 F. 4th 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2023) (applying the purposeful
direction test to false advertising and tortious interference claims).
To determine whether a defendant’s actions constitute purposeful direction, courts
apply the “effects” test developed in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789–90 (1984). The
Calder test requires that “the defendant allegedly must have (1) committed an intentional
act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is
likely to be suffered in the forum state.” Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme, 433
Case 2:25-cv-00115-JJT Document 65 Filed 09/08/26 Page 4 of 8

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation modified). “The proper question is not where the
plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant’s conduct
connects [it] to the forum in a meaningful way.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 290 (2014).
In other words, the relationship between the defendant, the forum state, and the litigation
“must arise out of contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum State” and not
just “the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.” Id. at 284–85 (emphasis in
original). Mere foreseeability that the forum will be affected is insufficient to satisfy the
Calder test—rather, there must be “something more.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin
Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 805 (9th Cir. 2004); Herbal Brands, Inc., 72 F.4th at 1092;
accord Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 111 (1987)
(plurality opinion).
Chemotechnique contends that removing the two non-actionable puffery statements
from the jurisdictional analysis would result in no jurisdiction at all, arguing that the
“remaining challenged statements in this case—those relating to FDA approval,
pharmaceutical grade quality, availability in the United States, and the properties of
Chemotechnique’s patch test chambers—were undisputedly made by Dormer, not
Chemotechnique.” (Doc. 60 at 4–5.)
In response, Smarthealth argues that other material communicated in the product
catalogue still supports jurisdiction. According to Smarthealth, the catalogue
“unambiguously indicates that CT’s products are available for distribution in the United
States, featuring the United States on its distribution map.” (Doc. 64 at 5.) The catalogue
produced by Chemotechnique does, in fact, demarcate the United States as a country “in
which Chemotechnique offers local distribution.” (Doc. 12-1 at 13.) This messaging,
according to Smarthealth, suggests to consumers receiving Chemotechnique’s catalogue
that its “products were legally available here [in the United States].” (Doc. 64 at 5.)
Smarthealth also points out that the catalogue offers Chemotechnique’s “North American”
and “American Core” series product lines that bundle a select group of products based on
recommendations created by groups comprised mostly of U.S.-based physicians, and
Case 2:25-cv-00115-JJT Document 65 Filed 09/08/26 Page 5 of 8

- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Chemotechnique has even noted on its own social media that the “American Core” series
is “country-specific.” (Doc. 45 at 4–5, 12; Doc. 64 at 5.)
This conduct is “something more” than merely placing its products in the stream of
commerce or attending conferences that happen to take place in the jurisdictional forum.
These actions were plainly intentional and, when considered together, sufficiently
demonstrate that Chemotechnique itself created meaningful contact with the United States
by almost annually attending industry-specific U.S.-based gatherings and distributing
material that had the natural consequence of encouraging consumers who received the
material to believe that the products are tailored for the United States, locally distributed
in the United States, and are therefore “legally available” in the United States.2 This
conduct satisfies the Calder test that establishes purposeful direction. Accordingly,
Smarthealth meets the first element of the minimum contacts test.
B. Nexus
To meet the second element of the minimum contacts test, “the claim must be one
which arises out of or relates to the defendant’s forum-related activities.” Morrill, 873 F.3d
at 1142. This inquiry does not demand “proof of causation—i.e., proof that the plaintiff’s
claim came about because of the defendant’s in-state conduct.” Ford Motor Co. v. Mont.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 592 U.S. 351, 362 (2021). While “[t]he first half of that
standard asks about causation . . . [] the back half, after the ‘or,’ contemplates that some
relationships will support jurisdiction without a causal showing.” Id. Still, the “relate to”
standard “does not mean anything goes,” and “relatedness requires a close connection
between contacts and injury.” Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd., 62 F.4th 496, 506 (9th Cir.
2023) (citation modified). In the Ninth Circuit, claims sufficiently relate to a defendant’s
forum contacts “if similar injuries will tend to be caused by those contacts” or “the
2 On this point, the Court recalls the parties’ earlier briefing on Dormer’s dismissal motion
as to statements implying FDA approval. (See Doc. 28 at 6.) Specifically, the parties
contested whether Dormer’s claim that its allergenic products were “available for
distribution in the United States” on its website implied that those products were approved
by the FDA. The circumstances of the statement made by Dormer differs from that made
by Chemotechnique, but the implied messaging is nonetheless the same: that
Chemotechnique’s allergenic products are legally available in the United States.
Case 2:25-cv-00115-JJT Document 65 Filed 09/08/26 Page 6 of 8

- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
defendant should have foreseen the risk that its contacts might cause injuries like that of
the plaintiff.” Id. at 505–06.
As Chemotechnique itself asserts, “[t]his case is about alleged false advertising”
(Doc. 51 at 2), and Smarthealth claims that Chemotechnique’s advertisements led
physicians and medical professionals to believe Chemotechnique’s products are: “(1)
legally sold in the United States; (2) proven to be safe and effective; and (3) that the
physician and medical personnel legally can seek federal reimbursement for [the] products
if prescribed for Medicare patients” (FAC ¶ 86).
As noted above, Chemotechnique’s product catalogue indicates that its products,
which include at least one product line described as “American Core,” are available for
“local distribution” in the United States. The Court agrees with Smarthealth that, at least
for jurisdictional purposes, this marketing tends to communicate that the products are
legally available and relates to Smarthealth’s allegations underlying its false advertising
claims. Smarthealth satisfies the second element of the minimum contacts test.
C. Reasonableness
Chemotechnique does not suggest that the Court’s analysis of the third minimum
contacts element—reasonableness—was manifest error, so the Court will not revisit it. As
it did before, the Court finds that Smarthealth meets the third and final element of the
minimum contacts test.
IV. CONCLUSION
Having met the three elements of the minimum contacts test, Smarthealth
establishes that subjecting Chemotechnique to an action in the United States “would not
offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,” Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316,
and personal jurisdiction lies here. The Court will set a scheduling conference pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 by separate order.
IT IS ORDERED granting Defendant Chemotechnique’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 60).
. . .
Case 2:25-cv-00115-JJT Document 65 Filed 09/08/26 Page 7 of 8

- 8 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant Chemotechnique’s Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and Joinder in Dormer Laboratories Inc.’s
Motion (Doc. 12).
Dated this 8th day of September, 2026.
Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-00115-JJT Document 65 Filed 09/08/26 Page 8 of 8