Page:Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc..pdf/7

4 accord, Kiobel, 569 U. S., at 117 (asking whether Congress “intends federal law to apply to conduct occurring abroad”); Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 3). If Congress has provided an unmistakable instruction that the provision is extraterritorial, then claims alleging exclusively foreign conduct may proceed, subject to “the limits Congress has (or has not) imposed on the statute’s foreign application.” RJR Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 337–338.

If a provision is not extraterritorial, we move to step two, which resolves whether the suit seeks a (permissible) domestic or (impermissible) foreign application of the provision. To make that determination, courts must start by identifying the “ ‘ “focus” of congressional concern’ ” underlying the provision at issue. Id., at 336. “The focus of a statute is ‘the object of its solicitude,’ which can include the conduct it ‘seeks to “regulate,” ’ as well as the parties and interests it ‘seeks to “protect” ’ or vindicate.” WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 6) (alterations omitted).

Step two does not end with identifying statutory focus. We have repeatedly and explicitly held that courts must “identif[y] ‘the statute’s “focus” ’ and as[k] whether the conduct relevant to that focus occurred in United States territory.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 5) (emphasis added); accord, e.g., RJR Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 337. Thus, to prove that a claim involves a domestic application of a statute, “plaintiffs must establish that ‘the conduct relevant to the statute’s focus occurred in the United States.’ ” Nestlé, 593 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 3–4) (emphasis added); see, e.g., WesternGeco, 585 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 6–8) (holding that a claim was a domestic application of the Patent Act because the infringing acts—the conduct relevant to the focus