Troma Entertainment, Inc. v. Centennial Pictures Inc., 729 F.3d 215

Troma seeks to invoke NY CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) to obtain personal jurisdiction over Robbins and Lauter for alleged IP infringement.
District court dismissed for lack of in-state injury; Troma appealed.
Robbins and Lauter allegedly licensed in Germany and engaged in acts outside NY; no NY in-state conduct is alleged.
Intravest Beteil-igungen GMBH acquired German distribution rights; Troma alleges misrepresentation and bootstrapped profits.
In 2011 Troma filed suit in EDNY for copyright infringement and related state-law claims; district court held no NY injury under §302(a)(3).
Penguin II narrowed the situs of injury in Internet-enabled IP infringement, but Penguin II is narrow; this case involves geographically circumscribed conduct and alleged NY injury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NY CPLR §302(a)(3)(ii) supports jurisdiction.	Troma relies on Penguin II theory of NY injury to IP rights.	Penguin II is narrow and not controlling here; no non-speculative NY injury shown.	No jurisdiction under §302(a)(3)(ii).

Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha, 609 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2010) (addresses situs of injury under §302(a)(3)(ii) for copyright cases; requires in-state injury evidence)
Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha, 16 N.Y.3d 295 (N.Y. 2011) (Penguin II; situs of injury location of copyright owner; narrow to Internet uploading case)
Fantis Foods, Inc. v. Standard Importing Co., 49 N.Y.2d 317 (N.Y. 1980) (injury alone in NY not sufficient for jurisdiction)
Lehigh Valley Indus. v. Birenbaum, 527 F.2d 87 (2d Cir. 1975) (consequential NY injuries insufficient for jurisdiction)
American Eutectic Welding Alloys Sales Co. v. Dytron Alloys Corp., 439 F.2d 428 (2d Cir. 1971) (harm in NY from out-of-state conduct insufficient)
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. v. Ingeni-um Technologies Corp., 375 F. Supp. 2d 252 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (court addressed jurisdiction in IP context)