Establishing Personal Jurisdiction in Declaratory Judgment Actions By: Lauren A. Salatto-Rosenay, Esq.
Freeman v. Chalas clarifies the standards for specific personal jurisdiction in declaratory judgment cases in the Western District of Washington. Freeman v. Chalas, 3:24-cv-06015-TMC (W.D. Wash June 5, 2025). The Court denied a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding specific jurisdiction proper where the out-of-state defendant directed enforcement activities toward a forum resident, such as Digital Millenium Copyright Act (hereinafter “DMCA”) takedown notices and Copyright Claims Board (hereinafter “CCB”) actions. Freeman illustrates how courts interpret the “purposeful direction” standard under the Calder effects test in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Walden v. Fiore, especially in the context of intellectual property disputes.
The doctrine of personal jurisdiction governs the ability of courts to hear cases involving out-of-state defendants. General personal jurisdiction considers whether the defendant is essentially at home in the forum state. Specific personal jurisdiction considers whether the claims of the action arise out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum state. In declaratory judgment actions, particularly those seeking non-infringement findings in intellectual property disputes, the jurisdictional inquiry becomes complex. Unlike typical infringement suits, the relevant conduct in declaratory judgment actions is often the defendant’s enforcement efforts, rather than the defendant’s alleged infringement. This raises a key question: When do such enforcement actions constitute “purposeful direction” toward the forum state sufficient to support specific personal jurisdiction?
In Freeman v. Chalas, the court addressed this question by applying the Ninth Circuit’s three-pronged test for specific jurisdiction, highlighting how enforcement conduct directed at the forum but short of formal litigation can satisfy constitutional due process.
Specific jurisdiction requires a connection between the defendant’s forum-directed activities and the claims at issue. Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351, 359 (2021). The Ninth Circuit’s test, as reiterated in Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F.4th 739 (9th Cir. 2025), requires: (1) Purposeful direction or availment; (2) Claims arising from forum-related activities; and (3) Reasonableness of jurisdiction.
For tort-like claims, which includes intellectual property infringement, courts apply the Calder effects test: whether the defendant committed (1) an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the forum state, (3) causing harm the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum.
In Freeman, the court emphasized that enforcement actions beyond a mere cease-and-desist letter, such as DMCA takedown notices and administrative complaints before the CCB, satisfy Calder’s “express aiming” prong. This distinguishes Freeman from post-Walden cases such as Dadbod Apparel LLC v. Hildawn Design LLC, No. 2:24-CV-00188 DJC AC, 2024 WL 1886497, where the defendant’s cease-and-desist letters and initiation of takedown notices were insufficient to warrant specific personal jurisdiction because such conduct was considered directed toward a resident of the forum state, rather that the forum itself. In Freeman, however, the initiation of the CCB action by Defendant Chalas in combination with other enforcement activities (DMCA takedown notices and cease-and-desist letters) was considered conduct purposefully directed toward Washington, such that it was sufficient for the Western District of Washington to exercise personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, enforcement efforts that include initiating an action in a quasi-judicial body, such as the CCB, is enough to tip the scales in favor of specific personal jurisdiction.
Further, the court also found support in Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta National Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000), where letters that did more than just warn or threaten were sufficient to constitute purposeful direction.
The second prong requires that the claims arise out of or relate to forum-directed conduct. Declaratory relief actions flip the traditional infringement script: here, the plaintiff seeks clarity on their rights in response to the defendant’s accusations.
The Court clarified that, for declaratory judgment actions, the relevant conduct is whether the defendant purposefully directed enforcement activities at residents of the forum and the extent to which the declaratory judgment claim arises out of or relates to those activities. Impossible Foods Inc. v. Impossible X LLC, 80 F.4th 1079, 1092 (9th Cir. 2023). In Freeman, the combination of cease-and-desist letters to both Freeman and her distributors, CCB actions (one against Plaintiff Freeman and one against a distributor), and DMCA takedown notices (directed toward both Plaintiff Freeman and her distributors) were directly related to the declaratory judgment action to warrant specific personal jurisdiction.
Freeman v. Chalas illustrates that intellectual property enforcement actions, particularly those with real-world market impact in the forum, can support jurisdiction under the Calder framework. The court’s decision aligns with a growing judicial willingness to recognize the jurisdictional consequences of modern, cross-border enforcement tactics such as DMCA takedown notices and administrative filings. Overall, this recent decision contributes meaningfully to the broader jurisprudence on due process in declaratory relief actions.
As digital marketplaces blur jurisdictional boundaries, courts must grapple with how enforcement behavior impacts forum contacts. Freeman demonstrates that when a defendant’s conduct involves more than passive communication, especially enforcement efforts that include initiation of actions at quasi-judicial bodies, specific jurisdiction may be found constitutional. Further, this opinion offers an important guidepost for companies and individuals seeking to enforce their intellectual property rights, signaling where enforcement may cross the line into purposeful direction toward a forum state.
Attorneys Michael J. Folise, Esq. and Lauren A. Salatto-Rosenay, Esq. of Bamert Regan PLLC represented Plaintiff Freeman.
© 2025 Bamert Regan PLLC