823 F. Supp. 2d 966
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiffs, origami designers, allege 24 of Morris's Origami Series paintings infringe their 2‑D crease-pattern copyrights.
- Morris is a New York–based painter/filmmaker who travels between New York and London; authorized sellers are galleries in NY, London, Berlin.
- Lang is a California resident; his website and a New Yorker article indicate California ties known to Morris.
- Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief for alleged willful infringement and related market competition harms.
- Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; motion argued September 8, 2011.
- Court sua sponte analyzes specific personal jurisdiction under California long‑arm and due process standards; no general jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has specific jurisdiction over Morris | Lang resides in California; Morris allegedly targeted California | Morris has no California contacts or purposeful targeting | No specific jurisdiction |
| Whether Morris expressly aimed conduct at California | Defendant willfully infringed Lang in California | No individualized targeting of Lang in California | Express aiming not established |
| Whether knowledge of Lang's California residency suffices | Morris knew Lang resided in California | Knowledge alone is insufficient without targeting | Knowledge alone insufficient; no jurisdictional basis shown |
| Whether jurisdictional discovery is warranted | Discovery could reveal jurisdictional facts | Affidavits comprehensive; discovery unnecessary | Jurisdictional discovery denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (effects test for purposeful direction; intentional act directed at forum)
- Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l, Inc., 223 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2000) (foundational Calder-based effects analysis for jurisdiction)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (three-prong test for specific jurisdiction; minimum contacts)
- Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (express aiming requires more than foreseeability; targeted competition considerations)
- Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (express aiming where defendant targeted forum by competing for local clients)
- Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd., 611 F.3d 601 (9th Cir. 2010) (targeted competition in forum required; passive conduct insufficient)
- Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (website targeting California market supports express aiming)
- CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2011) (express aiming tied to direct forum competition and targeted market)
- Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (foundation for general/specific jurisdiction principles)