805 F. Supp. 2d 958
C.D. Cal.2011Background
- CYBERsitter, LLC sues the PRC and several Chinese/Taiwanese entities for misappropriation of its software and related IP.
- Defendants Haier Group, Beijing Dazheng, and Zhengzhou Jinhui move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; Haier also moves to dismiss for forum non conveniens and for FSIA-based immunity challenges.
- Dazheng and Jinhui separately seek forum non conveniens; Dazheng and Jinhui argue California is an inconvenient forum.
- Plaintiff opposes all motions and presents evidence of alleged willful infringement and targeted harm in California.
- Court denies all motions: retains jurisdiction, finds specific jurisdiction over Haier, Dazheng, and Jinhui, and applies FSIA commercial activity exception to join PRC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has specific jurisdiction over the three foreign defendants | Plaintiff asserts Calder effects and targeted conduct for California. | Defendants contend no CA-directed acts; no sufficient ties to CA. | Yes; court finds express aiming and injury in California sufficient. |
| Whether forum non conveniens warrants dismissal or transfer | California forum is proper for IP dispute; local interest strong. | China is clearly more convenient; private/public factors favor China. | Denied; court retains case in California. |
| Whether the PRC is immune under FSIA or properly joined | FSIA commercial activity exception applies; PRC acts outside US linked to injury. | PRC immune absent retroactive connection to commercial activity. | PRC not immune; commercial activity exception applies and PRC properly joined. |
| Whether the acts outside the US were in connection with a commercial activity and caused direct effects in the US | Licensing, sublicensing, and distribution tied to Green Dam program constitute commercial activity with direct US effects. | Argues lack of causal link or direct effects. | Satisfied; acts outside US connected to commercial activity with direct effects in US. |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (intentional acts expressly aimed at forum; harm foreseeable in forum)
- Panavision Int'l, L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (1998) (purposeful direction; brunt of injury in forum supports jurisdiction)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (2004) (three-part test for specific jurisdiction; purposeful direction)
- Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, 379 F.3d 1124 (2004) (Calder effects framework and purposeful aiming)
- Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton Broad. of Birmingham, Inc., 106 F.3d 284 (1997) (willful infringement directed at forum resident supports jurisdiction)
- Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat'l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (2000) (express aiming and targeted conduct)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (forum state fair play and justice considerations)