CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc.
653 F.3d 1066
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- CollegeSource, a California corporation, sues AcademyOne, a Pennsylvania corporation, for misappropriating catalogs and course descriptions from CollegeSource's websites.
- CollegeSource claims substantial value and cost to compile its 44,000 catalogs and a proprietary course-description database.
- District court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; CollegeSource appeals.
- AcademyOne targeted California with ads, outreach, and California-user activity (IP visitation, registered users, California offices of subscribers).
- AcademyOne downloaded and posted hundreds of CollegeSource catalogs and descriptions via a contractor, including splash pages and terms of use; a cease-and-desist letter was sent in April 2007.
- CollegeSource asserted multiple claims (CFAA, Cal. Penal Code § 502, breach of contract, misappropriation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, plus trademark and Lanham Act after jurisdictional discovery).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AcademyOne is subject to general jurisdiction in California | CollegeSource contends continuous, systematic contacts; California is home state. | AcademyOne has no California offices, property, staff, or registered presence; minimal forum activity. | Not subject to general jurisdiction in California. |
| Whether AcademyOne is subject to specific jurisdiction for misappropriation | Misappropriation directed at California and causing forum-based harm; purposeful direction. | No California-directed conduct; limited contacts. | Yes, California-specific jurisdiction over misappropriation (and pendent jurisdiction over related claims). |
| Whether pendent personal jurisdiction extends to remaining claims | Related claims share a nucleus of operative facts with misappropriation. | N/A or insufficient for non-mpecified remaining claims. | Courts may exercise pendent personal jurisdiction over the remainder of the claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Supreme Court, 1945) (establishes minimum contacts and due process standard for jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (U.S. 2011) (general jurisdiction requires continuous and systematic contacts)
- Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1984) (limits on general jurisdiction; physical presence not required in all cases)
- Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (purposeful injection and forum harm factors for specific jurisdiction)
- Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998) (set framework for analyzing minimum contacts in California)
- Cal. v. Brayton Purcell, 606 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2010) (express aiming in misappropriation/likelihood of competition in forum)
- Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme, 433 F.3d 1199, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) ( Calder-era 'effects' test for intentional torts with target in forum)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 122 (9th Cir. 2011) (an interactive website generally provides limited guidance on general jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (reasonsableness factors (seven-factor test) for fair play and substantial justice)
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) (purposeful direction principle and effects test alignment)