Does Ford create a categorical rule that specific jurisdiction does not require any link between the defendant's forum contacts and the plaintiff's injury, even when the defendant has no presence in the forum state?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under the U.S. Constitution, courts may not exercise specific personal jurisdiction unless the plaintiffs alleged injury “arises out of or relates to” the defendant’s forum contacts. In Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, this Court clarified that this standard does not always require proof of a “strict causal relationship” between injury and forum contacts. 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1026 (2021). But causation was not irrelevant. Rather, the Court explained that in “some” cases, a defendant’s “raft of ... in-state activities” may be an “except for” cause of the plaintiffs injury even if that cannot be definitively “pro[ved].” Id. at 1026, 1029. Concurring, Justice Alito called this “rough causation.” Id. at 1034. In this action for trademark noninfringement, the court below read Ford as creating a categorical rule that no form of causation is ever required in any context. The court below held that Impossible X, a single-member LLC, is subject to California’s specific jurisdiction based on general business activities that took place years before the controversy arose, even though Impossible X has never sought to enforce its trademarks in California. The questions presented are: 1. Does Ford create a categorical rule that specific jurisdiction does not require any link between the defendant’s forum contacts and the plaintiffs injury, even when the defendant has no presence in the forum state? 2. Are the relevant forum contacts in a declaratory noninfringement action only those that relate to the defendant’s enforcement-related conduct, or can they also include general business activities?