Will Co., Ltd. v. Ka Lee, 47 F.4th 917

Background

Will Co., a Japanese adult-video producer with U.S. copyright registrations, discovered 13 of its videos posted without authorization on ThisAV.com and sent DMCA takedown notices.
ThisAV.com is owned by Hong Kong company Youhaha Marketing & Promotion Ltd. (YMP); Ka Yeung Lee is a YMP director. The site hosts user-uploaded videos and is monetized via third-party ads.
Defendants hosted the site with a U.S. provider (servers in Utah) and used Cloudflare CDN services covering North America; legal-compliance pages (DMCA, 2257, Privacy/Terms) are in English and reference U.S. law.
During the relevant period (Apr–Jun 2020) the site had ~28 million views; ~4.6% (~1.3 million) of views were from the U.S.
The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding Will Co. failed to show ThisAV.com was “expressly aimed” at the U.S. or caused jurisdictionally significant harm there.
The Ninth Circuit reversed: applying Rule 4(k)(2) and the Calder effects test, it found defendants purposefully directed the site at U.S. viewers (hosting/CDN choices, U.S.-focused compliance pages) and that harm in the U.S. was foreseeable and substantial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 4(k)(2) permits specific personal jurisdiction over foreign operators for a federal copyright claim	Will Co.: Yes; claim arises under federal law, defendants not subject to any state court, and due process allows jurisdiction because defendants purposefully directed conduct at the U.S.	Defs.: No; lack general jurisdiction and did not expressly aim site at U.S.; foreseeability and some U.S. traffic alone insufficient	Court: Rule 4(k)(2) can apply; due process satisfied because defendants purposefully directed conduct at the U.S.
Whether defendants committed an intentional act under Calder for jurisdictional purposes	Will Co.: Creating/operating the site, registering domain, hosting choices and CDN purchases are intentional acts	Defs.: Operation and passive availability do not equate to intentional targeting of U.S.	Court: Intentional-act element met (operation, domain purchase, hosting/CDN choices)
Whether defendants "expressly aimed" the site at the U.S. (Calder second prong)	Will Co.: Hosting in Utah, buying North America CDN, U.S.-focused DMCA/2257/privacy pages in English, and substantial U.S. views show appeal to and profit from U.S. market	Defs.: Server/CDN location alone insufficient; compliance pages may be template language; anticipating U.S. users ≠ targeting them	Court: Express aiming satisfied—defendants both appealed to and profited from U.S. audience; disputes resolved for plaintiff at this stage
Whether harm occurred in and was foreseeable to the U.S. (Calder third prong)	Will Co.: >1.3M U.S. visits is substantial; takedown notice put defendants on notice of infringement in U.S.	Defs.: Brunt of harm elsewhere; U.S. views are a small percentage	Court: Harm in U.S. was jurisdictionally sufficient and foreseeable; the "brunt" need not be in the forum

Key Cases Cited

Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (established the "effects" test for purposeful direction)
Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (adopted Calder framework in Ninth Circuit)
Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (express-aiming requires appeal to and profit from forum audience)
AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Wanat, 970 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2020) (mere web accessibility and U.S. traffic insufficient to show express aiming)
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, 465 U.S. 770 (1984) (small percentage of national distribution may still constitute substantial forum harm)
Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) (forum-specific substantiality of harm governs jurisdiction)
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) (Calder test articulated for tort claims)
Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (Rule 4(k)(2) personal-jurisdiction framework)