West World Media, LLC v. Ikamobile Ltd., 809 F. Supp. 2d 26

Background

West World Media is a Connecticut corporation that licenses and distributes movie showtime data to licensees worldwide.
Ikamobile Limited (Delaware) and Ikamobile Corporation (British Columbia) operate Movie Finder, an Android app displaying showtimes and advertising.
West World alleges Ikamobile scraped its data without license and used it to feed Movie Finder, potentially infringing hot news and CUTPA claims.
In December 2010, Ikamobile proposed a revenue-sharing deal; discussions included Ikamobile’s use of West World’s data and advertising impressions.
West World’s IT confirmed Ikamobile’s use of its data; later, a West World employee tested Movie Finder from Connecticut and could view ads.
The court granted Ikamobile’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, concluding Connecticut long-arm jurisdiction did not apply.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 33-929(f)(2) authorizes long-arm jurisdiction	Ikamobile solicited Connecticut business via targeted information sharing.	Ikamobile’s conduct does not amount to CT-directed solicitation; website is not CT-specific.	No long-arm jurisdiction under § 33-929(f)(2).
Whether Ikamobile purposefully availed itself of Connecticut law	Ikamobile’s Connecticut-accessible data and impacts on CT consumers show purposeful availment.	Actions were not aimed at CT consumers or solicitation; ads serve advertisers, not CT customers.	No purposeful availment; CT long-arm not satisfied.
Whether exercise of jurisdiction would offend due process	If CT has jurisdiction under § 33-929(f)(2), due process would not be offended given connection to CT.	No minimum contacts to support jurisdiction; due process not satisfied.	Not reached; jurisdiction lacking under § 33-929(f)(2).
Whether venue, service, or failure to state a claim were properly asserted	Ikamobile’s defenses should be analyzed under proper personal jurisdiction.	Venue, service, and failure to state a claim defenses independently lack merit.	Not necessary to address due to lack of personal jurisdiction.

Key Cases Cited

Monsky v. Moraghan, 127 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 1997) (acceptance of complaint as true for jurisdiction testing)
Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A., 902 F.2d 194 (2d Cir. 1990) (prima facie jurisdiction standard in Rule 12(b)(2))
Seetransp. v. Navimpex Centrala Navala, 989 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1993) (conflicting affidavits resolve in plaintiff's favor)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard; plausibility requirement)
Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard; not mere labels)
Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1986) (non-conclusory allegations required)
Mytych v. May Dept. Stores Co., 34 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D. Conn. 1999) (motion to dismiss; feasibility of relief evidence shielded)
Ryder Energy Distrib. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc., 748 F.2d 774 (2d Cir. 1984) (evidence weight not tested on motion to dismiss)
United States v. Yale New Haven Hospital, 727 F. Supp. 784 (D. Conn. 1990) (scope of factual pleading and review on motions)
Thomason v. Chem. Bank, 234 Conn. 281 (Conn. 1995) (advertising targeting CT customers supports jurisdiction)
Am. Wholesalers Underwriting, Ltd. v. Am. Wholesale Ins. Grp., Inc., 312 F. Supp. 2d 247 (D. Conn. 2004) (non-targeted advertising nationwide insufficient for § 33-929(f)(2))
Milne v. Catuogno Court Reporting Servs., Inc., 239 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D. Conn. 2002) (passive internet advertisement not solicitation)
Powder Coating Consultants v. Powder Coating Inst., 2010 WL 582613 (D. Conn. 2010) (repeated solicitations directed at CT required; ad views insufficient)
Thomason v. Chem. Bank, 234 Conn. 281 (Conn. 1995) (advertising to CT residents supports long-arm jurisdiction)
Lombard Bros., Inc. v. Gen. Asset Mgmt. Co., 190 Conn. 245 (Conn. 1983) (long-arm jurisdiction framework; two-step test)