in that particular forum. Id. (citing Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment)). Specifically, the defendant must have “purposefully directed” its activities at residents of the forum and the litigation must result from alleged injuries that “arise out of or relate to” those activities. Id. (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985); Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 774 (1984); Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984)).
Because DCS’s injury arises out of BCE’s alleged trademark violation, the sole issue here is whether BCE purposefully directed its conduct at residents of Florida. In intentional tort cases, there are two tests the court may apply to determine whether the defendant engaged in purposeful conduct aimed at the forum state. Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Mosseri, 736 F.3d 1339, 1356 (11th Cir. 2013). The first is the traditional “minimum contacts” analysis, under which personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is predicated on “minimum contacts” between the defendant and the state. Id.; Keeton, 465 U.S. at 774. In the alternative, the court may apply the Calder2 “effects” test to determine jurisdiction. Id. For the reasons articulated herein, the Court concludes that DCS has failed to establish this Court’s jurisdiction over BCE under either of these standards.
1. The “Minimum Contacts” Test
Under the “minimum contacts” test, the inquiry is whether the defendant’s contacts “(1) are related to the plaintiff’s cause of action; (2) involve some act by which the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privileges of doing business within the
____________________2Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984).