Horizon Comics Productions, Inc. v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC
1:15-cv-11684
D. Mass.Feb 9, 2016Background
- Horizon Comics (Canadian) sued Marvel, Marvel affiliates, Disney, DMG and unnamed distributors, alleging copyright infringement (Iron Man films/books copied Horizon’s Radix armor) and a Massachusetts G.L. c. 93A claim.
- Radix (created 2001–2002) depicts futuristic armored suits; Lai brothers (Radix authors) had later freelance work for Marvel. Horizon alleges prior distribution of Radix materials to Marvel personnel.
- Defendants are Delaware entities with principal places of business largely in New York or California; none maintain offices, employees, or property in Massachusetts.
- Films/books were shown and sold in Massachusetts (and nationwide) via theatrical distributors and online retailers; Horizon sent cease-and-desist letters pre-suit.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; Horizon sought limited jurisdictional discovery. The court granted dismissal and denied discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction (specific) | Horizon: Defendants’ films/books were distributed and sold in MA; nationwide distribution and online availability make jurisdiction in MA proper. | Defendants: No purposeful availment of MA; contacts through third-party distributors and national sales are attenuated and insufficient. | Dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction — Horizon failed relatedness and purposeful-availment showings; exercise would be unreasonable. |
| Jurisdictional discovery | Horizon: Discovery may show distribution agreements tying Defendants to MA (e.g., domestic distributors or agents). | Defendants: Discovery would only confirm nationwide distribution, not MA-specific contacts. | Denied — Horizon did not make a colorable jurisdictional showing nor show discovery would likely produce MA-specific facts. |
| Venue for copyright claim | Horizon: Venue proper because infringing works were shown/sold in MA. | Defendants: Copyright venue requires personal jurisdiction under § 1400(a); because no personal jurisdiction, venue is improper. | Venue improper for copyright claim — tied to lack of personal jurisdiction. |
| Venue for c.93A claim | Horizon: MA is proper forum because a substantial part of the events (sales/showings) occurred in MA. | Defendants: No MA-specific unfair practices alleged; sales occurred nationwide and do not single out MA. | Venue improper — Horizon’s § 93A claim is duplicative/preempted and lacks MA-specific events sufficient for venue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mass. Sch. of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 142 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1998) (plaintiff bears burden to establish personal jurisdiction; court credits plaintiff’s specific factual allegations when evaluating prima facie jurisdictional showing)
- Foster-Miller, Inc. v. Babcock & Wilcox Canada, 46 F.3d 138 (1st Cir. 1995) (test for prima facie jurisdictional showing and assessment of facts)
- Boit v. Gar-Tec Prods., Inc., 967 F.2d 671 (1st Cir. 1992) (standard for evaluating jurisdictional facts supporting personal jurisdiction)
- Sawtelle v. Farrell, 70 F.3d 1381 (1st Cir. 1995) (courts may consider affidavits and supplement pleadings when assessing jurisdiction)
- Ticketmaster-N.Y. Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201 (1st Cir. 1994) (courts should not credit conclusory allegations or draw farfetched inferences in jurisdictional analysis)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and foreseeability principles in specific jurisdiction analysis)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984) (special considerations for jurisdiction in libel cases; circulation causing local injury)
- Glater v. Eli Lilly & Co., 744 F.2d 213 (1st Cir. 1984) (discussing Keeton’s libel context and limits on its application)
- Swiss Am. Bank, Ltd. v. United States, 274 F.3d 610 (1st Cir. 2001) (plaintiff who makes a colorable jurisdictional showing may be entitled to limited jurisdictional discovery)
- Astro–Med, Inc. v. Nihon Kohden Am., Inc., 591 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (venue analysis takes a holistic view; court need not select the best venue, only a proper one)