Sanho Corporation v. CIMO Technologies, Inc, 4:11-cv-02473

Sanho is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Sunnyvale, California, manufacturing and distributing iPad 2 protective covers and displaying its copyrighted images on HyperShop.com with a California-located brand mark.
CIMO is a New Jersey corporation with a Paterson headquarters that sells technology-related accessories, including iPad 2 covers, on cimousa.com and on eBay/Amazon storefronts.
Plaintiff discovered and identified Sanho’s copyrighted images on CIMO’s websites and filed suit for copyright infringement and related state-law claims; CIMO acknowledged copying but characterized it as inadvertent.
Plaintiff alleges that CIMO’s use caused a 40% drop in sales, market confusion, and reputational damage; CIMO argues the copying occurred for about 16 days and did not significantly affect sales.
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting federal copyright and vicarious infringement claims and state-law unfair competition, false designation of origin, false advertising, and California tort claims; CIMO moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2).
The court held a hearing on July 25, 2012, and GRANTED CIMO’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, not reaching other Rule 12(b) issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has specific personal jurisdiction over CIMO.	Plaintiff argues the effects of copyright infringement satisfy the express aiming prong.	CIMO argues it lacked forum-specific targeting and that mere website presence is insufficient.	Not satisfied; lack of express aiming defeats specific jurisdiction.
Whether CIMO’s conduct was expressly aimed at California under the effects test.	CIMO knew Sanho’s California HQ and that conduct would affect California; website was interactive and California-accessible.	There was no targeted conduct at California; mere foreseeability is insufficient.	Express aiming not satisfied; jurisdiction not established.

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (established effects test for purposeful direction)
Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (express aiming satisfied when defendant targeted nationwide audience for commercial gain)
Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (express aiming requires more than foreseeable effects; targeted conduct needed)
Brayton Purcell, LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (intentional act and targeting at the forum may establish express aiming)
Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) (internet activity and forum reach considerations for jurisdiction)