Sage Global Services Limited v. 4th Paradigm (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 SAGE GLOBAL SERVICES LIMITED, et Case No. 5:23-cv-04534-BLF al., 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 9 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF v. PERSONAL JURISDICTION 10 4TH PARADIGM (BEIJING) [Re: ECF No. 61] 11 TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., 12 Defendant. 13 14 Before the Court is Defendant 4th Paradigm (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd.’s (“4th 15 Paradigm”) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Sage Global Services Limited’s (“Sage Global”) and Sage 16 Software, Inc.’s (“Sage Software”) (collectively, “Sage”) First Amended Complaint for lack of 17 personal jurisdiction. ECF 61 (“Mot.”). Sage filed an Opposition. ECF 64 (“Opp.”). 4th Paradigm 18 filed a Reply. ECF 65 (“Reply”). The Court has considered the moving and responding papers, the 19 relevant portions of the record, and arguments made by the parties following the completion of 20 jurisdictional discovery on May 29, 2025. For the reasons described below, the Court GRANTS 4th Paradigm’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 21 22 I. BACKGROUND A. The Parties and Their Marks 23 Plaintiff Sage Global is a British private limited company with its principal place of business 24 in Newcastle, United Kingdom. ECF 58 (“FAC”) ¶ 7. Plaintiff Sage Software is a Virginia 25 corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Id. ¶ 8. Sage employs 26 approximately 500 people in California, with over 300 based in its San Jose office. Id. ¶ 46. In 2024, 27 1 for over 10% of Sage’s sales revenue in the United States. Id. 2 Sage owns the SAGE trademark (“SAGE Mark”) and has used the SAGE Mark in 3 connection with its software and Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) products and services throughout the 4 United States for over thirty years. Id. ¶¶ 11, 13. 5 Defendant 4th Paradigm is a Chinese company with its principal place of business in China. 6 Id. ¶ 9. According to Sage, 4th Paradigm markets and sells products that incorporate the SAGE 7 Mark. Id. ¶ 20. Sage alleges that 4th Paradigm has marketed and sold its products to businesses 8 throughout California and the United States. Id. ¶ 21. 9 B. Procedural Background 10 On September 1, 2023, Sage filed its original Complaint against 4th Paradigm for infringing 11 the SAGE Mark. ECF 1. 4th Paradigm filed a motion to dismiss Sage’s complaint for lack of 12 personal jurisdiction. ECF 32. On November 26, 2024, the Court granted 4th Paradigm’s motion to 13 dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction without prejudice and granted Sage’s request to conduct 14 jurisdictional discovery. ECF 55. 15 On March 31, 2025, after completing jurisdictional discovery, Sage filed its First Amended 16 Complaint. ECF 58 (“FAC”). In the FAC, Sage asserts four claims against 4th Paradigm: 1) federal 17 trademark infringement in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), FAC ¶¶ 51-58; 2) unfair competition 18 and false designation of origin in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A), id. ¶¶ 59-67; 3) California 19 common law trademark infringement, id. ¶¶ 68-72; and 4) California unfair competition in violation 20 of California State Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., id. ¶¶ 73-75. 21 C. 4th Paradigm and California Contacts 22 Facts Alleged in the FAC 23 In the FAC, Sage has alleged the following facts in support of personal jurisdiction: 24 1. 4th Paradigm has directed and targeted its actions at California and its residents, 25 including targeting large research institutions such as Stanford University for 26 collaboration and the development of its products. Id. ¶ 5. 27 2. 4th Paradigm has marketed and sold its software solutions and services to businesses 1 3. At 4th Paradigm’s offices in Beijing, China, which it occupied until August 2024, 4th 2 Paradigm maintained a wall displaying the names and trademarks of dozens of 4th 3 Paradigm’s customers and contacts around the world, including the United States. Id. ¶ 4 22. 5 4. 4th Paradigm has business relationships or agreements with numerous companies or 6 subsidiaries of companies that are based in the United States and has provided products 7 and services under the SAGE Mark to customers in the United States. ECF 58, ¶ 23. Those companies include Yum China Holdings, Inc. (who owns KFC and Pizza Hut and 8 has offices in the United States), the National Basketball Association, Starbucks, Burger 9 King, Kérastase, Budweiser, and Mazda. Id. ¶ 23. 10 5. In January 2020, 4th Paradigm attended the Consumer Electronics Show (the “CES 11 Event”) in Las Vegas, Nevada. Id. ¶ 24. At the CES Event, 4th Paradigm showcased its 12 “Prophet Sage” platform and “SageOne” software systems. Id. 4th Paradigm also 13 unveiled its graphical interactive AI tool “SageExpress.” Id. At the CES Event, 4th 14 Paradigm marketed and promoted its products and services under the SAGE mark. Id. ¶ 15 25. 4th Paradigm’s attendance at the CES Event received news coverage. Id. ¶ 26. 16 6. In December 2020, 4th Paradigm announced an agreement (“Yescom Agreement”) with 17 Yescom USA Inc. (“Yescom”), a California based e-commerce business, through which 18 4th Paradigm would sell to Yescom software platforms and products that would enable 19 Yescom to provide marketing services for millions of consumers in the United States. 20 ECF 58, ¶ 27. Sage alleges that, under the Yescom Agreement, 4th Paradigm agreed to 21 complete the installation and deployment of 4th Paradigm’s Sage EE platform for use by 22 Yescom in California. ECF 58, ¶ 28. 23 7. 4th Paradigm received significant investments from investment firms and financial 24 institutions in the United States, including Goldman Sachs and California-based Sequoia 25 Capital. Id. ¶¶ 5, 29. 26 8. In August 2020, 4th Paradigm participated in the Association for Computing 27 Machinery’s Knowledge and Data Mining Cup (the “KDD Cup”), held in San Diego, 1 California. Id. ¶ 30. At the KDD Cup, 4th Paradigm co-sponsored a competition with 2 Stanford University and Google. Id. 4th Paradigm’s participation in this event is 3 promoted on its website. Id. 4 9. In 2022, 4th Paradigm submitted an application for a competition hosted by the Industrial 5 Designers Society of America (“IDSA”), a United States based industry group. Id. ¶ 31. 6 4th Paradigm’s Sage AIOS operating system received recognition on IDSA’s website. 7 Id. ¶ 31. 10. In March 2023, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security 8 blacklisted 4th Paradigm and added 4th Paradigm to its “Entity List.” Id. ¶ 32. 9 11. In June 2024, 4th Paradigm’s CEO, Dai Wenyuan, attended an interview with 10 Bloomberg TV about the launch of 4th Paradigm’s “Sage platform 5.0,” or Sage AIOS. 11 Id. ¶ 33. During the interview, 4th Paradigm’s CEO stated that 4th Paradigm has more 12 than 130 customers that are “Fortune 500 and listed companies,” including Starbucks, 13 Burger King and KFC. Id. ¶ 33. Sage alleges that many of these customers use 4th 14 Paradigm products and services that incorporate the SAGE Mark in the United States 15 and 4th Paradigm itself does not know where its customers have deployed 4th Paradigm 16 products incorporating the SAGE Mark. Id. ¶ 33. 17 12. Sage alleges that at least three businesses that have purchased products from 4th 18 Paradigm that incorporate the SAGE Mark left reviews on a website by Gartner, Inc. 19 (“Gartner”), a third-party technological research and management consulting firm, 20 stating that they have deployed the product in the United States. Id. ¶ 34. 21 Evidence from Jurisdictional Discovery 22 4th Paradigm submitted the following evidence obtained through jurisdictional discovery 23 that shows the following: 24 1. 4th Paradigm received investments from Sequoia Capital China and Goldman Sachs 25 Asia team. See ECF 61-4, Rutowski Decl., Ex. C., Deposition of Chai Yifei, at 46:15- 26 47:15. 27 2. 4th Paradigm does not work with any American research institutions. Id. at 47:16-48:5. 1 3. 4th Paradigm has never issued a product license in the United States under the Sage 2 mark. Id. at 44:10-13. 3 4. 4th Paradigm never delivered any products under the Sage mark to any customers in 4 California or the United States. Id. at 13:17-23, 15:5-10, 62:14-18, 70:2-16. 5 5. The Yescom Agreement was negotiated between 4th Paradigm and Yescom’s 6 representatives in China, was governed by Chinese law and contained a dispute 7 resolution clause specifying a court in China. ECF 39-1, Chai Yifei Decl. ¶ 5. Jurisdictional discovery shows that the Yescom Agreement was never carried out and 8 that no services and software were provided under the agreement. ECF 61-4, Rutowski 9 Decl., Ex. C. at 38:22-25; 42:8-9. 10 6. The KDD Cup was an algorithm or model competition, and 4th Paradigm’s participation 11 in the competition did not involve any Sage branded products. Id. at 49:10-20. 12 7. 4th Paradigm’s User Interface (“UI”) design team communicated remotely with the 13 IDSA to receive the award for its Sage AIOS operating system in 2022. Id. at 52:16- 14 53:5. 15 8. 4th Paradigm attended the CES Event in Nevada in 2020 where it showed one Sage 16 device, one Sage logo, and demo of the conceptual design of Sage Express. Id. at 55:14- 17 17. To the best of 4th Paradigm’s knowledge, the flyers it passed out at the CES Event 18 did not contain the term “Sage.” ECF 61-5 at 8. 19 II. LEGAL STANDARD 20 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a party may move to dismiss a pleading for 21 “lack of personal jurisdiction.” “Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds 22 of their jurisdiction over persons.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283 (2014) (quoting Daimler AG 23 v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 125 (2014)). California's long-arm statute is coextensive with federal due 24 process requirements. See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800–801 (9th 25 Cir. 2004). “Although a nonresident's physical presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the court 26 is not required, the nonresident generally must have ‘certain minimum contacts . . . such that the 27 maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” 1 Walden, 571 U.S. at 283 (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). 2 Personal Jurisdiction may be either general or specific. General personal jurisdiction exists 3 when the defendant's contacts “are so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home 4 in the forum State.” Daimler, 571 U.S. at 127 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Specific 5 personal jurisdiction exists when the defendant's contacts with the forum state are more limited but 6 the plaintiff's claims arise out of or relate to those contacts. Id. at 127–28. 7 “In opposition to a defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that jurisdiction is proper.” Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 8 1011, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). Challenge to personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) may be based on 9 materials outside the complaint. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th 10 Cir. 2004). “[I]n a factual attack, the challenger disputes the truth of the allegations that, by 11 themselves, would otherwise invoke federal jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 12 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). “In resolving a factual attack on jurisdiction, the district court may 13 review evidence beyond the complaint without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for 14 summary judgment.” Id. “Although the plaintiff cannot simply rest on the bare allegations of its 15 complaint, uncontroverted allegations in the complaint must be taken as true. Conflicts between 16 parties over statements contained in affidavits must be resolved in the plaintiff’s 17 favor.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 A. General Jurisdiction 20 In the opposition, Sage states that it “do[es] not contend that the Court has general personal 21 jurisdiction over [4th Paradigm].” Opp. at 4 n.1. As the Court previously found in the Order Granting 22 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Without Prejudice and Granting 23 Plaintiffs’ Request to Conduct Jurisdictional Discovery, 4th Paradigm is not subject to general 24 jurisdiction in California because it is incorporated under Chinese law and maintains its principal 25 place of business in China. ECF 55 at 4. 26 B. Specific Jurisdiction 27 4th Paradigm argues that, after jurisdiction discovery, Sage has still failed to establish that 1 the Court can exercise specific jurisdiction over 4th Paradigm. Mot. at 10. In response, Sage argues 2 that the Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over 4th Paradigm pursuant to California’s long- 3 arm statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10 or the federal long-arm statute, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). 4 Opp. at 3. 5 Specific jurisdiction arises when a defendant's specific contacts with the forum state give 6 rise or relate to the claim in question. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 7 408, 414–16 (1984). “A court exercises specific jurisdiction where the cause of action arises out of or has a substantial connection to the defendant's contacts with the forum.” Glencore Grain 8 Rotterdam BV v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain Co., 284 F.3d 1114, 1123 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 1. Personal Jurisdiction under California’s Long-Arm Statute 10 To analyze specific personal jurisdiction, courts “consider the extent of the defendant’s 11 contacts with the forum and the degree to which the plaintiff’s suit is related to those contacts.” 12 Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 1210 (9th Cir. 2006). 13 The Ninth Circuit has established a three-prong test for whether a court can exercise specific 14 personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant: (1) the defendant “must purposefully direct his 15 activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act 16 by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, 17 thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws”; (2) “the claim must be one which arises 18 out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities”; and (3) “the exercise of jurisdiction 19 must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.” Schwarzenegger, 20 374 F.3d at 802. The plaintiff bears the burden on the first two prongs. Id. “If the plaintiff fails to 21 satisfy either of these prongs, personal jurisdiction is not established in the forum state.” Id. “If the 22 plaintiff succeeds in satisfying both of the first two prongs, the burden then shifts to the defendant 23 to present a compelling case that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be reasonable.” Id. (internal 24 quotation marks and citation omitted). 25 a. Purposeful Direction 26 The first prong of the analysis asks whether a defendant has “purposefully direct[ed] his 27 activities or consummate[d] some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform[ed] 1 some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the 2 forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. 3 “Purposeful direction” and “purposeful availment” are two different concepts, the former most often 4 used in suits sounding in tort and the latter in suits sounding in contract. Id. Here, a purposeful 5 direction analysis is most appropriate because this action involves a dispute over possible trademark 6 infringement, which is most analogous to a tort. Deal Point Trading v. Standard Process, Inc., 2020 7 WL 6106617, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2020) (trademark infringement). Under the purposeful direction test, “a defendant purposefully directed his activities at the 8 forum if he: ‘(1) committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing 9 harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum state.’ ” Picot v. Weston, 780 10 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)). The analysis of 11 these factors must focus on the “defendant’s contacts with the forum state itself, not the defendant’s 12 contacts with persons who reside there.” Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1122 (2014). “[M]ere 13 injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient connection to the forum. . . . The proper question is not 14 where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant’s conduct 15 connects him to the forum in a meaningful way.” Id. at 1125. 16 i. Intentional Acts 17 An “intentional act” is “an actual, physical act in the real world” that the actor has the “intent 18 to perform.” Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 806. The Court finds that the Sage has identified contacts 19 that are “intentional acts” in the FAC. 20 In the FAC, Sage alleges the following acts by 4th Paradigm: 1) 4th Paradigm has sold its 21 software solutions and services to businesses throughout California, FAC ¶ 21; 2) 4th Paradigm has 22 business relationships with companies based in the United States, id. ¶¶ 22-23; 3) in January 2020, 23 4th Paradigm attended the Consumer Electronics Show (the “CES Event”) in Las Vegas, Nevada, 24 where 4th Paradigm marked its products under the SAGE Mark at the event, id. ¶¶ 24-26; 4) in 25 December 2020, 4th Paradigm announced an agreement with the California-based Yescom to install 26 and deploy 4th Paradigm’s Sage EE platform for Yescom in California, id. ¶ 28; 5) 4th Paradigm 27 has received significant investments from investment firms and financial institutions in the United 1 States, id. ¶ 29; 6) in August 2020, 4th Paradigm participated in the KDD Cup in San Diego and co- 2 sponsored a competition with Stanford University and Google at the KDD Cup, id. ¶ 30; 7) 4th 3 Paradigm has received several awards and recognition from industry groups based in the United 4 States, including an award from the IDSA for 4th Paradigm’s Sage AIOS operating system in 2022, 5 id. ¶ 31; 8) 4th Paradigm’s CEO Day Wenyuan stated in an interview with Bloomberg in June 2024 6 that 4th Paradigm has U.S. companies as its customers, id. ¶ 33; and 9) at least three business left 7 reviews on Gartner’s website stating that they purchased 4th Paradigm’s SAGE-branded products and deployed those products in the United States, id. ¶ 34. 8 As a result of jurisdictional discovery, 4th Paradigm has submitted evidence that directly 9 contradicts some of Sage’s allegations: 1) 4th Paradigm received investments from Sequoia Capital 10 China and Goldman Sachs Asia team. See ECF 61-4, Rutowski Decl., Ex. C., Deposition of Chai 11 Yifei, at 46:15-47:15; 2) 4th Paradigm does not work with any American research institutions, id. 12 at 47:16-48:5; 3) 4th Paradigm never delivered any products under the Sage mark to any customers 13 in California, id. at 13:17-23, 15:5-10, 62:14-18, 70:2-16; 4) the Yescom Agreement was never 14 carried out and no services or software were provided under the Yescom Agreement, id. at 38:22- 15 25; 42:8-9; 5) 4th Paradigm’s participation in the KDD Cup did not involve any Sage branded 16 products, id. at 49:10-20; 6) 4th Paradigm’s UI design team communicated remotely with the IDSA 17 to receive the award for its Sage AIOS operating system in 2022, id. at 52:16-53:5; 7) 4th Paradigm 18 attended the CES Event in Nevada in 2020, id. at 55:14-17. 19 While some of Sage’s allegations are undermined by evidence from jurisdictional discovery, 20 the Court finds that Sage has met its burden of establishing that 4th Paradigm performed “intentional 21 acts.” 22 ii. Expressly Aimed at the Forum 23 The intentional contact must be “expressly aimed at the forum state.” Life360, Inc. v. 24 Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc., 2015 WL 5612008, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2015). The analysis 25 focuses on the “defendant’s contacts with the forum state itself, not the defendant’s contacts with 26 the persons who reside there.” Walden, 571 U.S. at 285. 27 4th Paradigm argues that the allegations in the FAC are still not sufficient to satisfy the 1 “express aiming” prong. Mot. at 15. In response, Sage argues that it has alleged sufficient facts 2 supporting that 4th Paradigm has purposefully directed its activities to California. Opp. at 5. 3 The Court finds that Sage has failed to make a prima facie case establishing that 4th 4 Paradigm “purposefully direct[s]” its activities to California or that Sage’s claims arise out of or 5 relate to such contacts. As to 4th Paradigm’s received investments from the United States, Compl. 6 ¶¶ 5, 29, jurisdictional discovery shows that 4th Paradigm did not engage in investment discussions 7 in California, but instead received those investments from Goldman Sachs Asia and Sequoia’s China branch. ECF 39-1 at 9; ECF 61-4, Rutowski Decl., Ex. C., Deposition of Chai Yifei, at 46:15-48:5; 8 see X Corp. v. Ctr. for Countering Digital Hate Ltd., 724 F. Supp. 3d 921, 941 (N.D. Cal. 2024) 9 (“[M]erely receiving generalized donations from California donors, and not aiming any activity at 10 the forum specifically, cannot confer jurisdiction.”). 11 As to 4th Paradigm’s collaboration with research institutions in this District, Compl. ¶ 5, 12 jurisdictional discovery shows 4th Paradigm does not collaborate with Stanford or any research 13 institution in the United States. ECF 61-4, Rutowski Decl. Ex C., Deposition of Chai Yifei, at 47:16- 14 48:5. Absent evidentiary support, Sage’s general allegations of 4th Paradigm’s connection to 15 research institutions based in California are insufficient to establish that 4th Paradigm’s acts 16 “expressly aimed” at California. Medimpact Healthcare Sys., Inc. v. IQVIA Holdings Inc., No. 19- 17 cv-01865, 2020 WL 1433327, at *12 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (holding that the establishment of a 18 joint venture with a California-based plaintiff is insufficient to show defendant’s act expressly aimed 19 at California). 20 As to 4th Paradigm’s business relationship with U.S. companies, Compl. ¶¶ 22-23, 33, 21 jurisdictional discovery shows that, other than the Yescom Agreement, 4th Paradigm’s business 22 relationships are with those companies’ Chinese branches or subsidiaries in China. See ECF 61-4, 23 Rutowski Decl., Ex. C., Deposition of Chai Yifei, at 30:23-31:24, 33:19-35:24 (stating that 4th 24 Paradigm’s customers include Starbucks China, Burger King’s Chinese company, Yum China (the 25 Chinese operator of KFC), Mazda’s Chinese team, NBA China, L’Oreal China, and AB InBev. 26 China). As to 4th Paradigm’s Yescom Agreement involving the sale of 4th Paradigm’s software 27 solutions and products in California, the agreement was negotiated in China, in Chinese, and 1 contained a clause that the agreement was to be governed by relevant Chinese law. ECF 39-1, Chai 2 Yifei Decl., ¶ 5. Jurisdictional discovery also confirms that the relationship was terminated before 3 any products or services were provided to Yescom. Id.; ECF 61-4, Rutowski Decl., Ex. C., 4 Deposition of Chai Yifei, at 37:17-20, 38:22-25, 42:8-9, 44:10-13. The Court finds the Yescom 5 Agreement is insufficient to establish that 4th Paradigm expressly aimed at California. See Walden, 6 571 U.S. at 285 (personal jurisdiction analysis focuses on the “defendant’s contacts with the forum 7 state itself, not the defendant’s contacts with the persons who reside there”); Boschetto v. Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir. 2008) (emphasizing that a one-time contract or isolated transaction 8 does not create a substantial connection or ongoing obligations with the forum state). Accordingly, 9 the Court finds that those allegations are insufficient to establish 4th Paradigm conducted an 10 intentional act that aimed at California. See Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802. 11 As to 4th Paradigm’s participation in the KDD Cup in San Diego and the IDSA competition, 12 FAC ¶ 30-31, the Court finds that those contacts were not expressly aimed at California. 13 Jurisdictional discovery shows that the KDD Cup “is an algorithm or model competition” that does 14 not involve commercialized SAGE products. ECF 61-4, Rutowski Decl., Ex. C., Deposition of Chai 15 Yifei, at 49:10-20. As to the IDSA competition, jurisdictional discovery shows that 4th Paradigm’s 16 UI design team participated in the competition remotely. Id. at 52:16-53:5. The Court finds that this 17 evidence does not show 4th Paradigm connected to California “in a meaningful way.” Walden 571 18 U.S. 277 at 290; see Davis v. Cranfield Aerospace Sols., Ltd., 71 F.4th 1154, 1162 (9th Cir. 2023) 19 (holding a defendant cannot be “haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or 20 attenuated contacts.”). 21 As to the third-party reviews of 4th Paradigm’s SAGE-branded products on Gartner’s 22 website, FAC ¶ 34, the Court previously found those reviews do not support an inference that 23 infringing products were sold in California. ECF 55 at 6. Jurisdictional discovery has not established 24 anything to the contrary. See Rutowski Decl. Ex. C at 44:10-13 (“[4th Paradigm has] never issued 25 a product license to the United States under the Sage mark.”). Sage argues that, because 4th 26 Paradigm “has no response for how these deployments of [4th Paradigm’s] SAGE-branded products 27 and services in the United States took place,” the Court should resolve this disputed fact in Sage’s 1 favor. Opp. at 8, 12. The Court notes that Sage acknowledges that “[t]here is, admittedly, not much 2 evidence on this point.” Opp. at 12. Here, jurisdictional discovery shows that 4th Paradigm did not 3 “intentionally sell a Sage product to a California, United States, customer,” and 4th Paradigm would 4 not have known if a customer used the product in the United States. ECF 64-2, Weinberger Decl., 5 Ex. A at 59:17-60:10. Resolving this disputed fact in Sage’s favor still does not show intentional 6 conduct by 4th Paradigm expressly aimed at California. Rather, the deployment of any Sage-branded 7 product by 4th Paradigm’s customers is at best unilateral activity of a third party. See Walden, 571 U.S. at 284 (“[The] unilateral activity of another party or a third person is not an appropriate 8 consideration when determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum State to 9 justify an assertion of jurisdiction.”) (alteration in original). 10 As to 4th Paradigm’s attendance at the CES Event in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2020, Sage 11 alleges that 4th Paradigm promoted its SAGE-branded products and services at the CES Event, and 12 its attendance was covered by news outlets that reach United States consumers. FAC ¶ 26; Opp. at 13 6. Jurisdictional discovery shows that 4th Paradigm showed one SAGE device and one conceptual 14 design at the CES Event. ECF 61-5, Rutowski Decl., Ex. D, 4th Paradigm’s Suppl. Resp. and Objs. 15 to Plaintiffs’ Jurisdictional Interrogs., at 6; Rutowski Decl. Ex. C at 55:14-17, 62:23-63:12. 16 Jurisdictional discovery also shows that, to 4th Paradigm’s best knowledge, the flyers distributed at 17 the CES Event “were a general introduction to 4th Paradigm and did not use the term ‘Sage.’” ECF 18 61-5, Rutowski Decl., Ex. D, at 8. As to Sage’s allegation on the news coverage on 4th Paradigm’s 19 attendance at the CES Event, the Court notes that the English article published on 20 fashionnetwork.com does not mention “Sage” or “4th Paradigm” while the two articles published 21 on sohu.com and k.sina.com.cn are in Chinese. See ECF 61-7, Rutowski Decl. Ex. F. The Court 22 finds that this evidence does not show that 4th Paradigm expressly aimed at California through its 23 attendance at the CES Event five years ago in Nevada. See SDS Korea Co. v. SDS USA, Inc., 732 F. 24 Supp. 2d 1062, 1072 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (holding that defendant’s attendance of a trade show in Las 25 Vegas did not demonstrate conduct directed toward California despite approximately 2,400 26 California residents attended the trade show). The Court is not persuaded by Sage’s reliance on 27 Portrait Displays and Temming. Opp. at 9 (citing Portrait Displays, Inc. v. Speece, 04-CV-1501 1 (RMW), 2004 WL 1964506, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2004) and Temming v. Summus Holdings, 2 LLC, 21-CV-4858 (LB), 2021 WL 5014854, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2021)). In both cases, the 3 Court found personal jurisdiction over defendants who attended a trade show in California. See 4 Portrait Displays, 2004 WL 1964506, at *6; Temming, 2021 WL 5014854, at *1, 5. Unlike those 5 cases, 4th Paradigm attended the CES Event in Nevada. 6 The Court is also unpersuaded by Sage’s argument that the effect of 4th Paradigm’s 7 attendance at the CES Event was felt in California, and that 4th Paradigm knew that promoting its SAGE-branded products at the CES Event “would resonate in California.” Opp. at 9. Under the 8 effects test, “purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state can be 9 met by the ‘purposeful direction of a foreign act having effect in the forum state.’” CE Distribution, 10 LLC v. New Sensor Corp., 380 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. 11 Servs., Inc. v. Bell & Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2003)). In CE Distribution, the 12 defendant had a business relationship with plaintiff “spanning a period of several years,” was aware 13 that plaintiff was based in Arizona and was the sole distributor of Jensen speakers in the United 14 States. CE Distribution, 380 F.3d at 1111. Under these circumstances, considering plaintiff’s 15 allegation that defendant intended to undermine plaintiff’s status as the sole distributor in the United 16 States, the Ninth Circuit found that defendant had “every reason to know that the effect of the 17 transactions would resonate in Arizona.” Id. Unlike CE Distribution, here, Sage has not shown any 18 evidence that would warrant an inference that 4th Paradigm knew that its attendance at the CES 19 Event in Nevada would cause harm to Sage in California years later. Indeed, Sage’s own corporate 20 witness testified that he could not identify any harm felt by Sage due to 4th Paradigm’s conduct. 21 ECF 61-6, Rutowski Decl. Ex. E, Sage 30(b)(6) Dep. Tr., at 57:21-58:14. 22 Sage’s “convergence” theory also fails. Opp. at 11-12. As discussed above, Sage still has 23 not alleged an intentional act by 4th Paradigm that was expressly aimed at California that has not 24 been undermined by jurisdictional discovery. The Court is unpersuaded by Sage’s reliance on 25 Sinatra. Opp. at 11 (citing Sinatra v. Nat’l Enquirer, Inc., 854 F.2d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)). In 26 Sinatra, the Ninth Circuit found the defendant directed its activities at California by advertising in 27 California to promote its business and was aware that “its services were known to or used by 1 California clients.” Sinatra, 854 F.2d at 1197. Here, there is no evidence showing that the Yescom 2 contract, which was negotiated in China and entered into in China, had resulted from 4th Paradigm’s 3 attendance at the CES Event. Id. at 1195 (“[T]he solicitation of business in the forum state that 4 results in business being transacted or contract negotiations will probably be considered purposeful 5 availment.”). 6 The Court is also unpersuaded by Sage’s reliance on the “stream of commerce” theory. Opp. 7 at 12. “Placing a product into the stream of commerce—even if the defendant is aware that the stream of commerce may or will sweep the product into the forum state—does not convert the mere 8 act of placing the product into the stream of commerce into an act of purposeful availment.” LNS 9 Enters. LLC v. Cont’l Motors, Inc., 22 F.4th 852, 860 (9th Cir. 2022). As discussed above, 10 jurisdictional discovery does not show that 4th Paradigm established a distribution channel or sold 11 its SAGE branded goods to California. See Pinkerton Tobacco Co. v. Art Factory AB, No. 2:20-CV- 12 01322-SB-MRW, 2021 WL 541441, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2021) (holding the existence of at 13 lease fifty-two infringing fans in the forum state did not support the inference that a distribution 14 channel was intentionally established). 15 Accordingly, the Court concludes that the second prong of the purposeful direction test is 16 not satisfied. 17 iii. Causing Harm Likely to be Suffered in the Forum State 18 4th Paradigm argues that harm in California was not foreseeable as Sage Global is a British 19 company with its principal place of business in the United Kingdom and Sage Software is a Virginia 20 company with its principal place of business in Georgia. Mot. at 20-21. In response, Sage argues 21 that 4th Paradigm should have known that Sage would suffer harm because Silicon Valley is the 22 “preeminent hub for software and technological innovation.” Opp. at 13. 23 The Court finds that Sage has failed to satisfy its burden to show that 4th Paradigm’s alleged 24 acts caused harm that 4th Paradigm knew was likely to be suffered by Sage in California. In the 25 FAC, Sage alleges that Sage Global is a British company with its principal place of business in the 26 United Kingdom and Sage Software is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business in 27 Georgia. FAC ¶¶ 7-8. Sage also alleges that it employs nearly 500 people in California with over 1 300 based in the San Jose office. FAC ¶ 46. Sage also alleges that, in fiscal year 2024, sales in 2 California accounted for over 10% of its sales revenue in the United States. Id. But Sage is neither 3 incorporated under California law nor maintains its principal place of business in California, and 4 Sage has not established that 4th Paradigm could have foreseen that Sage was likely to suffer harm 5 in California. See X Corp. v. Ctr. for Countering Digital Hate Ltd., 724 F. Supp. 3d 921 (N.D. Cal. 6 2024) (“For jurisdictional purposes, a corporation incurs economic loss in the forum of its principal 7 place of business.”); Imageline, Inc. v. Hendricks, No. 09-cv-01870, 2009 WL 10286181, at 4 (“[T]here is no evidence that Defendants, residents of Washington, would reasonably know that 8 Plaintiff, a Virginia corporation, would be likely to suffer harm in California as a result of the 9 allegedly infringing behavior such that Defendants would be subject to a lawsuit in California.”). 10 Indeed, jurisdictional discovery shows that Sage’s own corporate deponent did not have knowledge 11 of 4th Paradigm and could not identify any harm that was felt by Sage due to 4th Paradigm’s 12 infringing conduct in the United States. ECF 61-6, Rutowski Decl., Ex. E, Deposition of Dan Miller, 13 21:9-24, 57:21-58:14. Sage’s reliance on Panavision and CollegeSource is misplaced. Opp. at 13 14 (citing Panavision Int’l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316, 1321 (9th Cir. 1998) and CollegeSource, 15 Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1079 (9th Cir. 2011)). In both Panavision and 16 CollegeSource, the plaintiffs had their principal place of business in California. See Panavision, 141 17 F.3d at 1321; CollegeSource, 653 F.3d at 1079. 18 Accordingly, the Court concludes that the third prong of the purposeful direction test is not 19 satisfied. 20 * * * 21 Jurisdictional discovery overall favored 4th Paradigm’s position. Where Sage submitted 22 some evidence to refute 4th Paradigm’s evidence, the Court has credited Sage’s allegations, but 23 many of Sage’s allegations have been successfully refuted. Even so, on balance, the Court finds that 24 Sage has failed to establish that 4th Paradigm conducted an intentional act aimed at California. 25 Because Sage has not met its burden to satisfy the first prong of the personal jurisdiction test, the 26 Court need not reach the second and third prongs of the test. See Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem 27 Int'l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2017). 1 2. Personal Jurisdiction under Federal Long-Arm Statute Under Fed. R. Civ. 2 P. 4(k) 3 Where an international defendant has insufficient contacts with a particular state to warrant 4 jurisdiction, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) provides a basis for establishing jurisdiction if 5 “the United States serves as the relevant forum for a minimum contacts analysis.” Pebble Beach Co. 6 v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Under Rule 4(k)(2), personal 7 jurisdiction is proper where (1) the claim against the defendant arises under federal law, (2) the defendant is not “subject to the personal jurisdiction of any state court of general jurisdiction,” and 8 (3) “the federal court's exercise of personal jurisdiction must comport with due process.” Id. at 1159. 9 “The due process analysis under Rule 4(k)(2) is nearly identical to the traditional personal 10 jurisdiction analysis with one significant difference: rather than considering contacts between the 11 [defendants] and the forum state, we consider contacts with the nation as a whole.” Holland Am. 12 Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 462 (9th Cir. 2007). 13 4th Paradigm argues that Sage fails to allege personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k) 14 because the Complaint fails to allege “any activities related to its claims purposefully directed 15 anywhere in the United States.” Mot. at 25. In response, Sage argues that “the first two prongs are 16 satisfied because (1) this lawsuit arises under the Lanham Act . . .; and (2) Defendant has not 17 identified any state court of general jurisdiction to which it is subject to personal jurisdiction.” Opp. 18 at 18. As to the third prong, Sage argues that 4th Paradigm sells its infringing products to consumers 19 in the United States as evidenced by 4th Paradigm’s placement on the U.S. Department of 20 Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security blacklist. Id. Sage also argues that 4th Paradigm has 21 developed sufficient “minimum contacts” because 4th Paradigm “places its products in a stream of 22 commerce that foreseeably . . . culminates in the United States.” Id. 23 The Court agrees with Sage that the first two prongs of the test are satisfied. As to the first 24 prong, here, Sage asserts a federal trademark infringement claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), FAC 25 ¶¶ 51-58, and a federal unfair competition and false designation of origin claim under 15 U.S.C. § 26 1125(a)(1)(A), FAC ¶¶ 59-67. As to the second prong, 4th Paradigm does not identify any statement 27 in which it would be subject to personal jurisdiction, and thus this requirement is met. Holland Am. 1 Line Inc., 485 F.3d at 462. 2 As to the third prong, the Court finds that 4th Paradigm performed the following acts directed 3 to the United States: 1) in 2020, 4th Paradigm attended the CES Event in Las Vegas, Nevada, FAC 4 ¶¶ 24-26; 2) in August 2020, 4th Paradigm participated in the KDD Cup held in San Diego, 5 California, id. ¶ 30; 3) in 2022, 4th Paradigm participated in the IDSA competition, id. ¶ 31; and 4) 6 in March 2023, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security blacklisted 7 4th Paradigm and added 4th Paradigm to its “Entity List,” Id. ¶ 32. Nonetheless, the Court finds that those contacts are “too insignificant to invoke nationwide jurisdiction.” Holland Am. Line Inc., 485 8 F.3d at 462. 4th Paradigm’s placement on the Entity List does not support an inference that it sells 9 Sage branded products to consumers in the United States. See 15 C.F.R. Part 744 (2023) (exports, 10 reexports and selected transfers are restricted without a license for Listed Entities). Instead, as 11 confirmed by jurisdictional discovery, 4th Paradigm does not sell SAGE-branded products to 12 customers in the United States. ECF 61-4, Rutowski Decl. Ex C at 15:5-10, 29:8-30:5, 30:23-31:24, 13 32:9-17, 33:19-35:24. Jurisdictional discovery also shows that 4th Paradigm has never issued a 14 product license in the United States under the Sage mark. Id. at 44:10-13. Sage does not allege, and 15 the record does not show that 4th Paradigm has any “offices, employees, or other related connections 16 in the United States.” Holland Am. Line Inc., 485 F.3d at 462. Thus, the Court finds that 4th 17 Paradigm’s contacts with the United States are “scant, fleeting, and attenuated” and are insufficient 18 to support a nationwide jurisdiction in the United States. Holland Am. Line Inc., 485 F.3d at 462 19 ((holding that defendants’ contacts with the United States, including giving a presentation on a 20 cruise ship, sponsoring a reception and dinner tables, and occasional visits to cruise ships and 21 advertising in various marine publications, “hardly constitute significant contacts” and declining to 22 exercise jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2)). The Court is also not persuaded by Sage’s argument that 23 because 4th Paradigm placed its products in a stream of commerce, 4th Paradigm “has developed 24 sufficient ‘minimum contacts’” with the United States because it could foresee its products would 25 culminate in the United States. Opp. at 18. Placing a product in the stream of commerce, “without 26 more,” is not sufficient to establish a purposeful act “directed toward a forum state.” Holland Am. 27 Line Inc., 485 F.3d at 459 (citing Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102, 112 1 (1987)). 2 Sage’s reliance on Ayla is not helpful to Sage. Opp. at 19 (citing Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. 3 Ltd., 11 F.4th 972, 983 (9th Cir. 2021)). In Ayla, the Ninth Circuit found Alya Skin did “more than 4 || merely place its products into the stream of commerce” based on the facts that: 1) Alya Skin’s sales 5 || to American consumers were “substantial;” 2) Alya Skin offered its products directly for sale to the 6 || United States on its website; 3) Alya Skin contracted with a fulfilment center in Idaho to ship its 7 products throughout the United States; and 4) as evidenced by Alya Skin’s purported FDA approval, g || Alya Skin “sought out the benefits afforded by” regulatory regime in the United States. Jd. at 981- 9 82. Unlike Ayla, here, none of those contacts are present and any contacts between 4th Paradigm 10 and the United States are at best “random, isolated, or fortuitous.” /d. at 981 (citing Keeton v. Hustler Wl Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984). 2D For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS 4th Paradigm’s motion to dismiss on the grounds E B that Sage has failed to allege personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k). Having already been 4 granted jurisdictional discovery, it is clear that further amendment would be futile. 5 15 IV. ORDER 16 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 4th Paradigm’s Motion to 5 7 dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT 8 PREJUDICE for lack of personal jurisdiction. 19 20 Dated: July 30, 2025 09 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28