Plenty of ink has been spilled in the last few years over the Federal Circuit’s caselaw on venue—an issue frequently in the spotlight due to the court’s sparring with District Judge Alan D. Albright over convenience transfers. However, a different, venue-adjacent issue was at the center of a new precedential opinion from the Federal Circuit—that of general personal jurisdiction, or a court’s power to hear any claim against a certain defendant, over foreign corporations. While general personal jurisdiction exists for a US company in the state where it is “at home”, a different rule applies for non-US residents. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), general personal jurisdiction can be established over a defendant who “is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction”—i.e., a nonresident defendant, one not at home in any state—for a claim arising under federal law. Such a defendant can only challenge 4(k)(2) jurisdiction by identifying an alternate forum where the suit against it could have been brought. Yet the Federal Circuit’s January 9 In re: Stingray IP Solutions decision dealt with an even narrower edge case: whether a defendant can defeat 4(k)(2) jurisdiction solely by unilaterally consenting to jurisdiction in a different venue. The court held that it cannot do so.