Health Law Daily Wrap Up, GENERAL HEALTH CARE NEWS—D. Ariz.: Court reconsiders Lanham action against Swedish test manufacturer, (Sep 14, 2026)

By Sherri M. Schroeder, J.D.

The court agreed with the earlier decision that subjecting Chemotechnique to an action in the U.S. based on its tradeshow activity did not offend notions of fair play and justice.

Upon reconsideration, the Arizona federal district court agreed with its earlier decision that the exercise of federal long-arm jurisdiction over a Swedish medical test manufacturer would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Both courts concluded that the Swedish company, Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB, had minimum contacts with the U.S. based on its tradeshow activities under application of the Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), "effects" test. Furthermore, this was found to be true even after an earlier court determining a co-defendant's motion to dismiss found that particular language was "non-actionable puffery" in a separate ruling (Smarthealth Inc. v. Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB, No. CV-25-00115-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz. Sept. 8, 2026)).

Claims. Smarthealth, an Arizona manufacturer of patch tests for diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis, brought three claims against Chemotechnique, a Swedish competitor: (1) false advertising under the Lanham Act; (2) common law unfair competition; and (3) tortious interference with contractual relations. Smarthealth alleged that Chemotechnique and Dormer, Chemotechnique's Canadian distributor for the U.S., used false or misleading statements in advertising to give U.S consumers the wrong impression that the FDA had approved Chemotechnique products for sale in the U.S.

In separate motions, both Chemotechnique and Dormer moved to dismiss—Chemotechnique for lack of jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). Conceding lack of general or specific jurisdiction over Chemotechnique, Smarthealth relied on R. 4(k)(2), the federal long-arm statute, for jurisdiction. Applying the "effects" test found in Calder, the court found jurisdiction over Chemotechnique because the Swedish company purposefully availed itself of the U.S. forum through tradeshow activity, its facially intentional distribution of marketing collateral at the tradeshows bore a causal nexus with the false advertising and unfair competition claims, and, finally, the reasonableness factors largely weighed in favor of jurisdiction (see Swedish test manufacturer with no presence in U.S. faces Lanham Act litigation, Mar. 23, 2026). Chemotechnique then motioned for reconsideration, arguing that the court had already determined that particular language (e.g., "high quality," "most advanced") was "non-actionable puffery" in its separate ruling on Dormer's dismissal motion.

Purposeful direction. Because Smarthealth's claims sounded in tort, the court applied the purposeful direction test to see if Chemotechnique met the first element of the minimum contacts test, which in turn brought the Calder "effects" test into play. Chemotechnique's main argument was that removing the two non-actionable puffery statements from the jurisdictional analysis resulted in no jurisdiction at all because the remaining challenged statements were all made by Dormer. Smarthealth argued that the other material communicated in Chemotechnique's catalog distributed at the tradeshows still supported jurisdiction because (1) the catalog unambiguously indicated that Chemotechnique's products were available for distribution in the U.S.; (2) the catalog offered Chemotechnique's "North American" and "American Core" series product lines that bundled a select group of products based mostly on U.S.-based physician recommendations; and (3) Chemotechnique had noted on its social media that the "American Core" series was "country-specific."

The court agreed with Smarthealth. Per the court, Chemotechnique's conduct was "'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 "plainly intentional actions" sufficiently demonstrated to the court that Chemotechnique 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 were tailored for the U.S., locally distributed in the U.S., and were, therefore, "logically available" in the U.S.

Nexus. As for the second Calder element, that the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant's forum-related activities, the court looked to the Ninth Circuit precedent set in Yamashita v. LG Chem. Ltd., 62 F.4th 496 (9th Cir. 2023), which found that claims sufficiently relate to a defendant's forum contacts "if similar injuries will tend to be caused by those contacts" or "the defendant should have foreseen the risk that its contacts might cause injuries like that of the plaintiff." Here, the court agreed with Smarthealth that Chemotechnique's marketing—which indicated that its products, including at least one product line described as "American Core"—made it seem as if its products were available for local distribution in the U.S. The court further agreed that, at least for jurisdictional purposes, the marketing communicated that the products were legally available and related to Smarthealth's allegations underlying its false advertising claims. Therefore, Smarthealth had satisfied the second element of the minimum contacts test.

Reasonableness. The court declined to revisit the third "reasonableness" element of the minimum contacts test because Chemotechnique had not suggested that the previous court's analysis was manifest error. Therefore, the court found that Smarthealth had met the last element of the minimum contacts test.

Conclusion. Because Smarthealth had met the three elements of the minimum contacts test, Smarthealth established that subjecting Chemotechnique to an action in the U.S. would not offend traditional notions of fair play and justice. The court found that personal jurisdiction over Chemotechnique was in the U.S. and denied Chemotechnique's motion to dismiss and joinder in Dormer's motion to dismiss.

The case is No. CV-25-00115-PHX-JJT.

Judge: Tuchi, J.

Attorneys: Bradley W. Petersen (Slattery Petersen PLLC) for SmartHealth Inc. Eric Michael Fraser (Osborn Maledon PA) for Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB.

Companies: SmartHealth Inc.; Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB

MainStory: TopStory CaseDecisions FDCActNews AdvertisingNews GeneralNews MDeviceNews ArizonaNews