Triple Up Limited v. Youku Tudou Inc.
235 F. Supp. 3d 15
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Triple Up Ltd., a Seychelles corporation, alleges it owns U.S. internet-broadcasting rights to three Taiwanese films and sued Youku Tudou Inc., a Chinese internet-TV company, for copyright and related claims based on viewings of those films on Youku’s websites.
- Youku is incorporated in the Cayman Islands with principal operations in China, operates Mandarin-language video platforms, uses geoblocking for some content, and generates revenue mainly from advertising and subscriptions (Youku VIP).
- Triple Up’s evidence of U.S. viewing consisted primarily of one D.C.-based attorney who streamed the three films in 2015; Triple Up did not identify other U.S. viewers.
- Youku asserts it licensed two films for China (geoblocked for the U.S.), that user-uploaded content may explain non-geoblocked versions, and that it removed the challenged content within 24 hours of a January 2016 takedown notice.
- Triple Up seeks specific personal jurisdiction under D.C.’s long-arm statute (transacting business) or, alternatively, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) (contacts with the United States as a whole).
- The court concluded Youku’s U.S. contacts are insufficient for specific jurisdiction and denied Triple Up’s request for jurisdictional discovery, dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Youku’s U.S. contacts sufficient for specific jurisdiction (Rule 4(k)(2) / Due Process)? | Youku made content viewable in U.S.; accessible website plus some U.S.-directed activities establish purposeful availment. | Mere accessibility of a website and limited U.S. ties do not establish minimum contacts; no causal link to claims. | Held: Contacts insufficient; no specific personal jurisdiction. |
| Does Youku’s ability/failure to geoblock make posting content purposeful availment? | Failure to geoblock equals purposeful transmission to U.S.; geoblocking tech makes accessibility avoidable. | Failure to take affirmative steps to avoid U.S. does not equal purposeful availment; purposeful act required. | Held: Failure to geoblock does not constitute purposeful availment; argument rejected. |
| Do geographically targeted third‑party (English‑language) ads create jurisdictional contacts related to the claims? | Targeted ads (some U.S.) show purposeful targeting of U.S. users and revenue ties to U.S. markets. | Ads are third‑party, unrelated to infringement claims; no causal nexus to plaintiff’s injury. | Held: Even if ads target U.S., they are not causally related to the copyright claims; insufficient for specific jurisdiction. |
| Is jurisdictional discovery warranted to locate servers, revenue, or other U.S. ties? | Triple Up seeks discovery on geoblocking, ads, VIP subscribers, servers, and U.S. contracts to establish jurisdiction. | Requests are largely fishing expeditions; plaintiff’s showing is speculative. | Held: Denied. Only server-location discovery might be relevant, but plaintiff’s speculation was insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE New Media Servs. Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (mere accessibility of a website insufficient for personal jurisdiction)
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1980) (defendant must reasonably anticipate being haled into court where it has contacts)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1985) (purposeful availment and minimum contacts analysis)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S. 2014) (limits on general jurisdiction; relatedness required for specific jurisdiction)
- Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (U.S. 2014) (effects analysis requires the defendant’s contacts with the forum, not just effects on the plaintiff)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1984) (effects test: intentional acts expressly aimed at the forum causing harm there)
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (U.S. 2011) (failure to avoid forum does not automatically create purposeful availment)
- Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Rule 4(k)(2) analysis: forum is the United States as a whole)
- Gorman v. Ameritrade Holding Corp., 293 F.3d 506 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (website transactions can support jurisdiction when site functions as a forum storefront)