Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Joyfun Inc Co., Limited
8:19-cv-01582
C.D. Cal.Feb 7, 2020Background
- Blizzard, a California game developer, sued Hong Kong, BVI, and China-based entities (Zroad HK, Zroad Inc., Joyfun) alleging that their mobile/web game "Glorious Saga" infringes Blizzard’s Warcraft copyrights; FAC asserts direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright claims.
- The Infringing Game was distributed globally (Google Play, Microsoft Store, InstantFuns websites), monetized via in‑game purchases priced in US dollars, and promoted in English targeting US players.
- Blizzard alleges the defendants share owners, infrastructure, domain registrations, IP addresses, payment integrations, and that Joyfun supplied an SDK and hosting/monetization services.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; Zroad Inc. also moved under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
- Blizzard moved for court‑ordered alternative service on two alleged individual owners (Wang and Zhou) via plaintiffs’ U.S. counsel representing Zroad HK and Zroad Inc.; that motion was unopposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Zroad HK (under Rule 4(k)(2) — U.S. forum) | Zroad HK purposefully targeted U.S. players (English site, US‑timed events/servers, USD pricing, US ads, sales to U.S. customers) so jurisdiction is proper | Zroad HK: no U.S. offices/staff, no U.S.‑specific version or ad campaign; mere worldwide availability insufficient | Denied motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction — prima facie contacts with U.S. suffice; reasonableness factors not met by defendant |
| Personal jurisdiction over Zroad Inc. (Rule 4(k)(2)) | Zroad Inc. allegedly owned domains/copyrights, arranged distribution/payment agreements, uploaded app to servers, and is alter‑ego of other defendants | Zroad Inc.: shell entity with no employees/offices; no specific targeting of U.S. market | Denied motion to dismiss — allegations support purposeful availment, arose from U.S. activities, and defendant failed to show unreasonableness |
| Personal jurisdiction and pleading sufficiency re Joyfun; direct, contributory, vicarious infringement claims | Blizzard: Joyfun provided SDK, hosting, payment/monetization, advertising, and direct communications with U.S. players — supporting direct and contributory liability | Joyfun: plaintiffs impermissibly lump defendants together; Joyfun’s services are noninfringing or too attenuated; insufficient control/financial benefit for vicarious liability | Jurisdiction: denied (court has specific jurisdiction over Joyfun under 4(k)(2)). Pleading: direct and contributory claims survive; vicarious infringement dismissed for lacking allegations of legal right/practical ability to stop infringement and specific control/benefit evidence |
| Service by alternative means on Wang and Zhou | Service on counsel (A&A) representing Zroad HK/Zroad Inc. is reasonably calculated to give notice; defendants have submitted declarations and are aware of suit | No opposition; traditional international service impractical or would take excessive time | Granted: Rule 4(f)(3) service via plaintiffs’ counsel (English/Chinese) allowed; Hague Convention not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (establishes minimum contacts/personam jurisdiction standard)
- World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (limits jurisdiction to defendants with sufficient contacts to comport with fair play and substantial justice)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and reasonableness factors for specific jurisdiction)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (further articulation of plausibility standard)
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (Rule 4(k)(2) three‑part test for federal‑wide jurisdiction)
- Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (standards for alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) and due process)
- Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir. 1997) (website interactivity framework for purposeful availment)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff’s burden to make prima facie showing of jurisdiction)
- A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (contributory liability in internet distribution contexts)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) (vicarious liability requires control and direct financial benefit)