Health Law Daily Wrap Up, GENERAL HEALTH CARE NEWS—D. Ariz.: Swedish test manufacturer with no presence in U.S. faces Lanham Act litigation, (Mar 23, 2026)

By Justin Marcus Smith, J.D.

The court found alleged circumstances surrounding tradeshow activity in the U.S. satisfied minimum contacts necessary to perfect federal long-arm jurisdiction.

In a Lanham Act matter, a U.S. manufacturer of allergy test patches convinced the federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona, that exercise of federal long-arm jurisdiction over a Swedish competitor would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The court concluded the Swedish company had minimum contacts with the U.S. First, in applying the Calder “effects” test, the court found the Swedish competitor purposefully availed itself of the U.S. forum through tradeshow activity. Second, facially intentional distribution of marketing collateral at the tradeshows bore a causal nexus with the false advertising and unfair competition claims. Third, the court weighed the seven reasonableness factors and found they largely weighed in favor of jurisdiction (Smarthealth Inc. v. Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB, No. CV-25-00115-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz. Mar. 16, 2026)).

Background. 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, a Canadian distributor of Chemotechnique products in the United States, 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.

Chemotechnique moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). Smarthealth conceded the court did not have general or specific jurisdiction over Chemotechnique. Smarthealth relied instead on Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) federal long-arm statute jurisdiction over Chemotechnique in Arizona.

The parties did not dispute the first two elements of R. 4(k)(2), i.e., that the Smarthealth claims arose under federal law and that Chemotechnique was not subject to any state court jurisdiction. However, he parties sharply contested minimum contacts, the third element of R. 4(K)(2). Smarthealth carried the initial burden of showing minimum contacts.

Purposeful availment. The court applied the Calder “effects” test and concluded that Chemotechnique met the purposeful availment factor for minimum contacts with the U.S. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789–90 (1984). Smarthealth asserted many examples of Chemotechnique contacts with the U.S., but the court focused on trade show activity.

The court found Chemotechnique attended eight U.S. trade shows in the last decade. The court saw that the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) sponsored some of these shows and that ACDS members are almost exclusively based in the U.S. A product catalog and leaflet clearly marketed Chemotechnique products, indicated distribution capability in the U.S., and, most importantly, contained the same purportedly false or misleading language that Smarthealth placed in dispute. The language included the phrases “high quality” and “most advanced.” These were the same phrases that Smarthealth claimed deceived professionals in the U.S. into buying Chemotechnique products on a mistaken belief that they had FDA approval. Smarthealth said it lost revenue and market share as a result of this alleged Chemotechnique marketing. Chemotechnique did not refute that it was informed of the allegedly false and misleading nature of its advertisements and of the allegedly unfair nature of its competition against Smarthealth. Chemotechnique admitted its staff physically distributed the disputed material. That satisfied the first Calder element of an intentional act.

Chemotechnique’s nearly annual travel to the U.S. to attend events organized by a mostly U.S.-based trade association directly connected Chemotechnique to the U.S. forum. That satisfied the second Calder element of conduct expressly aimed at and hence establishing a connection with the forum.

In the court’s view at the dismissal stage, it appeared that Chemotechnique clearly knew its staff distributed the disputed marketing materials while staff were physically present in the U.S.; the materials allegedly contained false and misleading statements; and Chemotechnique did not refute that it had notice of the alleged false advertising in its marketing materials. The court found it reasonable to infer the very harm that Smarthealth alleged, consumer reliance through Chemotechnique trade show marketing. That satisfied the third, harm element of the Calder test.

Chemotechnique cited Holland American Line, Inc. v. Wartsila North America, Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 460 (9th Cir. 2007) for the proposition that its attendance at trade shows was not enough to perfect personal jurisdiction. The Holland defendants’ only connection to the U.S. was that they “occasionally visited cruise ships” and advertised in publications that “incidentally” made their way into the forum, but such contacts had nothing to do with the claims at issue in that matter. The court distinguished that Chemotechnique’s contacts in the instant matter were distinguishable because they allegedly involved intentional false advertising that was part-and-parcel of the contacts. Smarthealth alleged a clear and meaningful connection between the alleged act, the forum, and its false advertising and unfair competition claims.

The court continued that the Ninth Circuit imposes no higher standard for non-resident minimum contacts than what is traditionally applied in specific jurisdiction analysis. The court therefore rejected a Chemotechnique implication that the trade shoe contacts here were not “sufficiently extensive” to invoke R. 4(k)(2) long-arm jurisdiction. The court concluded Chemotechnique’s trade show contacts with the U.S. were the “something more” required for purposeful direction and satisfied each element of the Calder test.

Nexus. The court also found a causal nexus with the forum thus satisfying the second element of the minimum contacts test. The court noted here that Chemotechnique admitted it distributed product catalogs and leaflets at major industry events in the U.S. that contained the advertising statements in dispute.

Reasonableness. Smarthealth met the third and final “reasonableness” element of the minimum contacts test because Chemotechnique failed to make a compelling case otherwise. The burden of persuasion had shifted to Chemotechnique on the reasonableness element because Smarthealth satisfied the purposeful availment and causal nexus prongs for minimum contact.

The court considered the seven factors for reasonableness. First, Chemotechnique conceded purposeful availment to the extent it failed to address it. Second, although the exercise of jurisdiction would burden Chemotechnique because it had no agent or office anywhere in the U.S., the court said advances in technology have mitigated the inconvenience of litigating far from home.

Third, the court was aware of no particular conflict that adjudication in the District of Arizona would pose to the sovereignty of Sweden. Fourth, the court found the U.S. has an interest in enforcing its consumer protection laws. The fact that Dormer might be held accountable also or instead of Chemotechnique did not necessarily satisfy the U.S. interest. Fifth, the location of evidence and witnesses mostly in the U.S., as well as advances in communications technology, also weighed in favor of jurisdiction. Sixth, a denial of jurisdiction carried a risk of duplicative litigation and the complication of Smarthealth having to domesticate a Swedish judgment in the U.S., but these considerations only weighed slightly in favor of jurisdiction.

Last, Smarthealth did not carry the burden of disproving the existence of an alternative forum, and this last factor weighed against jurisdiction, whereas most of the seven reasonableness factors weighed in favor of jurisdiction.

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

Judge: Tuchi, J.

Attorneys: Allen C. Schlinsog (Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC) for SmartHealth Inc. Eric Michael Fraser (Osborn Maledon PA) for Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB.

Companies: SmartHealth Inc.; Chemotechnique MB Diagnostics AB

Cases: CaseDecisions FDCActNews AdvertisingNews ArizonaNews