It's a case involving the scope of specific personal jurisdiction in a particular trademark context, so it's not an issue that you'd think would generate much heat. Moreover, although Judge Bress authors the majority opinion and Judge VanDyke dissents, these jurists agree with each other in a wide variety of cases, so even though their respective styles often differ, you'd otherwise expect them to be somewhat simpatico.
Judge Bress has nice things to say about Judge Freeman's decision below -- even though he ultimately disagrees with her -- saying things like "In a thoughtful opinion, the district court acknowledged that the personal jurisdiction question was 'a close one.'"
By contrast, check out the type of language that Judge Bress repeatedly employs to describe Judge VanDyke's dissent:
"Impossible Foods did not waive its argument that Impossible X’s trademark building activities in California supply a basis for personal jurisdiction. The dissent belabors this point, but it is clearly wrong."
"The dissent is thus quite plainly mistaken . . . ."
"Although we agree with the dissent that the questions presented in this case are difficult, we are duty-bound to resolve them. We cannot avoid them through an inaccurate accounting of the proceedings below."
"[I]t is hardly novel to say that a company that operated from California for years availed itself of that state’s privileges and directed its activities there. The dissent’s hyperbolic assertion that we have engaged in “potentially the most radical reimagining and expansion of specific jurisdiction in decades” is obviously false."
"The dissent is thus clearly wrong in suggesting that under our decision today, a plaintiff like Impossible Foods could bring a declaratory judgment action like this one without any material threat of an enforcement action by the defendant. We of course hold no such thing."
Strong stuff. (Lots of adverbs.)
