There is a split between the Fifth and Ninth Circuits about whether a foreign manufacturer of a lithium battery falls within the specific personal jurisdiction of a state when its product is sold without authorization by a third party. Compare Ethridge v. Samsung SDI Co., 137 F.4th 309 (5th Cir. 2025) (yes), with Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd., 62 F.4th 496 (9th Cir. 2023) (no). See Divided Fifth Circuit Panel Splits with Ninth Circuit and Adopts a “Same Product Plus In-State Injury” Test of Relatedness for Personal Jurisdiction in a Product Liability Case.
The Seventh Circuit adds to the split by adopting the Ninth Circuit’s position finding no personal jurisdiction, in B.D. v. Samsung SDI Co., Ldt., No. 24-2444 (7th Cir. July 9, 2025).
“B.D. sued Samsung SDI, a South Korean manufacturer, in Indiana after one of its batteries exploded in his pocket there. The company moved to dismiss B.D.’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which the district court granted.”
“Samsung SDI sells batteries to sophisticated customers for use as components in consumer products, including products widely available across the Hoosier State. The company has thus purposefully availed itself of the Indiana forum by exploiting an end-product stream of commerce. Samsung SDI has not, however, availed itself of the forum through sales of individual batteries—that is, the derivative product. It instead conducts its business to prevent ordinary consumers from purchasing those individual batteries in Indiana.”
“Samsung SDI’s product offerings include the 18650 lithium-ion battery, which is named for its dimensions. The battery is 18mm in diameter, 65mm in length, and resembles a cylinder. The 18650 battery looks like a typical AA battery, but it holds more power and is rechargeable. And, unlike AA batteries, individual 18650 batteries are not intended for consumer purchase. Samsung SDI instead markets this model battery only to sophisticated corporate customers.”
“Samsung SDI takes steps to ensure its customers use 18650 batteries only for approved purposes. Customers must apply to purchase the individual batteries and disclose to the manufacturer how they plan to utilize them. Each customer must also, as a precondition of sale, acknowledge that 18650 batteries should not be used outside of a pack. The batteries are particularly dangerous when employed outside of a pack to power e-cigarette—or vaping—devices. Such devices are often kept close to a person’s body, so the risk of injury from an exploding battery is severe. For that reason, Samsung SDI will not sell 18650 batteries to a customer if its purchase application exposes ties to the e-cigarette industry.”
Nevertheless, without apparent authorization from Samsung SDI, a consumer was able to buy a single battery from an e-cigarette store in Vincennes, Indiana. This is the one that exploded in B.D.’s pocket.
In the ensuing litigation, which made one interlocutory trip up to the Seventh Circuit (B.D. ex rel. Myers v. Samsung SDI Co., 91 F.4th 856, 859 (7th Cir. 2024) (per curiam), the district court ultimately held “ that B.D. failed to show Samsung SDI purposefully availed itself of the Indiana forum.”
The Seventh Circuit affirms. Because Indiana’s long-arm statute extends to the length of due process, the question presented is “whether the Constitution permits an exercise of personal jurisdiction here.”
The plaintiff concedes that there is no general personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant, and so the issue is whether there is specific personal jurisdiction based on the sale of the battery. “[C]ourts across the country have split on the question of exercising specific personal jurisdiction over foreign battery manufacturers under similar circumstances,” citing inter alia the Fifth and Ninth Circuit case law.
Although the panel finds that there was purposeful availment by Samsung SDI of the Indiana forum for commercial purposes (it shipped wholesale batteries into the state), it concludes that the plaintiff failed to establish an adequate “relationship between a defendant’s purposeful contacts with [the] forum and the underlying lawsuit” as demanded by Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 358 (2021).
“Here, the unilateral actions of unknown third parties have made individual 18650 batteries accessible to consumers in Indiana. These third parties have created and exploited a derivative-product stream of commerce. Absent their unilateral actions, individual batteries would not be available to Indiana consumers for purchase.” Thus, “Samsung SDI had no hand in directing individual 18650 batteries to Indiana,” where such an individual sale was the immediate cause of B.D.’s injury.
The Ninth Circuit in Yamashita did not recognize a division between end-product stream of commerce (how the manufacturer delivered the product into the state) and derivative-product stream of commerce (how the product was repackage and sold by third-party vendors). “But in our view, distinguishing between the end-product stream of commerce and the derivative-product stream of commerce does not amount to dividing the forum. Instead, it accurately differentiates between the types of contacts Samsung SDI has with the forum.”
“Samsung SDI has not availed itself of the Indiana forum through the derivative-product stream of commerce. Individual 18650 batteries are available to consumers only because of the unilateral actions of third parties. But the company has availed itself of the Indiana forum through the end-product stream of commerce. It no doubt expected that its batteries would reach the state—yet only encased in packs, as evidenced by how it structured its business activities.”
The Seventh Circuit determines that there is “a disconnect between Samsung SDI’s purposeful in-state contacts, through an end-product stream of commerce, and B.D.’s lawsuit, which stems from a consumer purchase of an individual battery [derivative-product stream of commerce].” Samsung SDI did not control or anticipate the latter and, if anything, took precautions to prevent such resale. “The disconnect between Samsung SDI’s purposeful contacts with the state through the sale of 18650 batteries as components and B.D.’s injury—the consequence of an unauthorized, individual-battery purchase—precludes the exercise of personal jurisdiction.”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 