Page:Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc..pdf/31

Rh to business or property.” 579 U. S., at 354. The Court then concluded that there is a domestic application of that provision so long as there is a “domestic injury.” Ibid. In other words, the Court held that the focus of the statute had to occur domestically. It did not require a third step.

The Court also repeatedly quotes from cases where the Court has said that a domestic application requires that “the conduct relevant to the statute’s focus occurred in the United States.”,. In those cases, however, the Court first concluded (or assumed without deciding) that the focus of the provision at issue was conduct, and only then proceeded to consider whether the relevant conduct occurred domestically. In WesternGeco, for example, the Court considered the extraterritorial application of §271(f)(2) of the Patent Act, which formed “the basis for [the plaintiff’s] infringement claim.” 585 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7). The “focus” of that provision, the Court concluded, is the “act of ‘suppl[ying] in or from the United States,’ ” so the conduct “relevant to that focus” was the defendant’s “domestic act of supplying the components that infringed [the plaintiff’s] patents.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 7–8); see also Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, 593 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2021) (slip op., at 4–5) (assuming without deciding that “the ‘focus’ of the [statute] is conduct that violates international law” and then concluding that conduct relevant to that focus “occurred in Ivory Coast”). In other words, the Court looked to whether the focus of the statute at issue occurred domestically.

In sum, none of the cases upon which the majority relies establish categorically that there must be domestic conduct in order for there to be a domestic application of a statute. Calling this requirement “straightforward,” “established precedent” does not make it so.