Nielsen Consumer LLC v. LiveRamp Holdings, Inc.

Background

Nielsen Consumer LLC sued LiveRamp Holdings, Inc. and LiveRamp, Inc. for allegedly infringing two trademarks associated with Nielsen’s “Label Insight” data platform. LiveRamp moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois. Nielsen opposed the motion. The dispute involved Nielsen’s related case against Circana, LLC in Illinois and the relationship between Circana and LiveRamp.

The court described LiveRamp as a data-connectivity platform that offers customers products or data from third-party companies, including Circana. LiveRamp’s website was available throughout the United States, and the parties agreed that LiveRamp had a contractual relationship with Circana for data. The contract itself was not in the record.

Legal standard

Under Section 1404(a), a court may transfer a civil case to another district where the case could originally have been brought, considering convenience and fairness. The court first asks whether the proposed receiving court could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants, had subject-matter jurisdiction, and was a proper venue. The party seeking transfer bears the burden of showing that these requirements are met. If any first-step requirement is missing, the court need not analyze convenience and fairness.

Personal jurisdiction in Illinois

The court held that LiveRamp failed to show that the Northern District of Illinois had specific personal jurisdiction over it when Nielsen filed the case. The court applied the three-part test used in the Seventh Circuit for the type of tort claim at issue: intentional conduct, conduct expressly aimed at the forum state, and knowledge that the effects would be felt—and the plaintiff injured—in that state.

LiveRamp did not dispute that the alleged trademark infringement involved intentional and allegedly tortious conduct. The court therefore focused on whether LiveRamp’s conduct was expressly aimed at Illinois and whether LiveRamp knew Nielsen was likely to be injured there.

Consent to jurisdiction

LiveRamp argued that personal jurisdiction was proper because it was willing to consent to jurisdiction in Illinois so that this case and Nielsen’s related case against Circana could be consolidated. The court rejected that argument, explaining that a defendant cannot establish the required basis for a Section 1404(a) transfer merely by waiving or consenting to jurisdiction or venue.

Express aiming at Illinois

LiveRamp relied on two contacts with Illinois: its nationwide services, including availability in Illinois, and its contract with Circana, which was situated in Illinois. The court agreed with Nielsen that neither contact, standing alone, showed that LiveRamp expressly aimed its conduct at Illinois. The court also rejected LiveRamp’s argument that the two contacts together were sufficient.

The court distinguished a case in which an online marketplace exercised extensive control over sellers’ websites, pricing, and sales locations while allegedly acting with them to infringe intellectual property. Here, the complaint’s general allegation that LiveRamp and Circana collaborated to make Circana’s data available through LiveRamp’s platform did not show comparable control or an Illinois-focused scheme. The court also noted that LiveRamp had not provided evidence that it had Illinois customers to whom it made Circana’s data available.

The court concluded that LiveRamp’s nationwide website and contract with a third-party data supplier situated in Illinois were not enough to establish conduct expressly aimed at Illinois. It characterized those contacts as insufficiently connected to Illinois under the circumstances presented.

Knowledge of likely injury in Illinois

The court separately found that LiveRamp had not shown that it knew Nielsen was likely to be injured in Illinois. LiveRamp argued at the hearing that, because Nielsen was based in Chicago, it knew the effects of its arrangement with Circana would be felt by Nielsen in Illinois. The court explained that the transfer inquiry looks backward to whether the case could have been brought in Illinois originally. The contract and evidence about the circumstances in which it was made were not before the court, and LiveRamp did not meet its burden.

Disposition

The court found that the Northern District of Illinois lacked specific personal jurisdiction over LiveRamp when Nielsen filed the lawsuit. Because personal jurisdiction was a threshold requirement, the court did not reach the parties’ other arguments about convenience and fairness. Judge Susan Van Keulen denied LiveRamp’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois.