Superama Corporation, Inc. v. Tokyo Broadcasting System, Inc., 2:22-cv-00299

Background

USA Sumo (Superama Corp.) produced and owned videos/photos from the May 12, 2018 US Sumo Open in Long Beach and registered the work with the U.S. Copyright Office.
Tokyo Broadcasting System Television, Inc. (TBS), a Japan-based broadcaster, inquired about a license but allegedly downloaded the full footage from YouTube and rebroadcast a 125-second edited segment in Japan without authorization or payment.
In this suit (Corrected Amended Complaint), Superama alleges TBS circumvented YouTube’s technological protection measures (via “hacking” or “stream ripping”) and asserts a DMCA anti‑circumvention claim (17 U.S.C. § 1201) plus three claims under Japan’s 1970 Copyright Law.
The same parties litigated these events previously in the Central District of California; that prior suit (copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 106) was dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.
Superama now argues § 1201 creates a domestic U.S. copyright claim because the technological measures and servers were in the U.S., while TBS contends all operative misconduct occurred in Japan.
The Court treated the motion as a facial Rule 12(b)(1) attack, accepted the CAC’s allegations as true, and found additional factual pleading could not cure the jurisdictional defect.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1201 of the DMCA applies extraterritorially so federal jurisdiction exists	Circumvention occurred in the U.S. (YouTube protections and servers are U.S.-based; TBS circumvented those protections)	All circumvention, downloading, and broadcasting occurred in Japan; U.S. copyright law does not reach wholly foreign acts	Court: Plaintiff did not rebut presumption against extraterritoriality; § 1201 does not apply here because circumvention and access occurred in Japan; no subject‑matter jurisdiction
Whether Nabisco two‑step test supports domestic application of § 1201	Statute should be analyzed section‑by‑section; § 1201’s technological focus implies cross‑border reach	Even under Nabisco, statutory text and history do not show clear congressional intent for extraterritorial reach	Court: Applied Nabisco; found no clear congressional intent to apply § 1201 abroad and Plaintiff failed step two (conduct relevant to statute’s focus not domestic)
Whether the location of servers or storage in the U.S. makes circumvention domestic	Storing an exact copy on U.S. servers means circumvention/access is domestic	Storage location alone is insufficient; where the circumvention and access were initiated/completed controls	Court: Rejected plaintiff’s technical parsing; storage in U.S. does not create jurisdiction when circumvention occurred abroad
Leave to amend / claim‑splitting / futility	Requested leave to amend to add facts showing circumvention in U.S.; argued prior dismissal lacked merits so new claims permissible	Defendant argued this is claim‑splitting and amendment would not cure jurisdictional defect	Court: Declined to dismiss for claim‑splitting (not briefed), but denied leave to amend as futile and dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM–Pathe Communications Co., 24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 1994) (U.S. copyright law has no extraterritorial application)
RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U.S. 325 (2016) (two‑step framework for extraterritoriality analysis)
Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (presumption against extraterritoriality)
WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018) (use statute’s focus to determine domestic application)
Synopsys, Inc. v. AzurEngine Techs., Inc., 401 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (focus of § 1201 is preventing circumvention to gain access)
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013) (interpretation of phrases like “under this title” in copyright statute)
Superama Corp., Inc. v. Tokyo Broad. Sys. Television, Inc., [citation="830 F. App'x 821"] (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal of prior infringement suit for lack of jurisdiction)
MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm't, Inc., 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010) (DMCA legislative history and the ‘‘breaking into a locked room’’ analogy)
Allarcom Pay Television, Ltd. v. General Instrument Corp., 69 F.3d 381 (9th Cir. 1995) (completion of infringement determined by where signal was received/viewed)
Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe, 141 S. Ct. 1931 (2021) (Supreme Court recognizing two‑step extraterritoriality framework)