Page:Soma v. SCB.pdf/7

 jurisdiction in Utah. See Patriot Systems, Inc. v. C-Cubed Corp., 21 F. Supp. 2d 1318, 1323–24 (D. Utah 1998). The court in Patriot Systems adopted the analysis of several other courts, which “reveals three general categories along a ‘sliding scale’ for evaluating jurisdiction.” Id., at 1324. The categories are as follows: "First, personal jurisdiction is established when “a defendant clearly does business over the Internet,” such as entering into contracts which require the “knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet.” Second, exercising personal jurisdiction is not appropriate when the Internet use involves “[a] passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it.” Under these circumstances, “a defendant has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to users in foreign jurisdictions.” Third, a middle category encompasses “interactive Web sites where a user can exchange information with the host computer.” Whether the exercise of jurisdiction is appropriate depends upon “the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information that occurs on the Web site.”"

Id. (quoting Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119, 1123–24 (W. D. Pa. 1997)) (other quotations omitted); see also Mink v. AAAA Dev. LLC, 190 F. 3d 333, 336 (5th Cir., 1999) (adopting Zippo court analysis); Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F. 3d 414, 419 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that “the common thread [in cases involving jurisdiction via an Internet website], well stated by the district court in Zippo, is that ‘the likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity conducts over the