Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha

Last updated
Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case namePenguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha
ArguedJanuary 7 2010
DecidedMay 12 2011
Citation(s)640 F.3d 497
Holding
Vacated United States District Court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Robert D. Sack, Robert A. Katzmann, Denny Chin
Case opinions
Per curiam

Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha, 640 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 2011), [1] was a case in which United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which had granted American Buddha's motion to dismiss Penguin Group (USA) Inc. ("Penguin")'s copyright infringement action for lack of personal jurisdiction. [2] The appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Contents

Background

American Buddha is an Oregon-based nonprofit organization represented by lawyer Charles Carreon and run by his wife Tara Lyn Carreon. American Buddha has uploaded complete copies of books and other media onto American Buddha's online library that is accessible by its 50,000 members free of charge.[ citation needed ] Four of those books [nb 1] are copyrighted works owned by New York City-based book publisher Penguin. Penguin brought a copyright infringement action against American Buddha in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that American Buddha infringed on Penguin's copyrights in those four works. [4] Because American Buddha was an out-of-state defendant, Penguin asserted personal jurisdiction according to New York's Long-Arm Statute, N.Y. C.P.L.R.§ 302(a)(3)(ii), [5] which provides:

"[A] court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary ... who ... commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state, ... if he ... expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce. ...

To establish jurisdiction under N.Y. C.P.L.R.§ 302(a)(3)(ii), [5] Penguin needed to demonstrate that:

"(1) the defendant's tortious act was committed outside New York, (2) the cause of action arose from that act, (3) the tortious act caused an injury to a person or property in New York, (4) the defendant expected or should reasonably have expected that his or her action would have consequences in New York, and (5) the defendant derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.

Interpretation of N.Y. C.P.L.R.§ 302(a)(3)(ii) [5]

It is well-established that suffering economic damages in New York is insufficient to establish a "direct" injury in New York under N.Y. C.P.L.R.§ 302(a)(3). [5] [6] Moreover, N.Y. C.P.L.R.§ 302(a)(3) [5] is not satisfied when a plaintiff suffers remote injuries such as lost profits within New York only because the plaintiff is doing business in New York. [7] Due to the above two reasons, some New York courts have concluded that the situs of injury is where the actions associated with the injury take place. [2] However, in cases where "the plaintiff had additional ties to the State, such as the presence of the trade secrets and the threatened loss of customers here", [2] [8] some New York courts have held that situs of injury is the place where plaintiff is located.

Opinion of the District Court

The critical question for the district court, in deciding whether it had personal jurisdiction over American Buddha, was to decide where the alleged infringement happened. [2] Although the Internet was a complicating factor in this case, from the court's point of view, it did not play a role in determining the situs of injury because only copyright infringement by American Buddha was alleged, not the downloading of the copied material by any individual who could be located anywhere, including New York. The district court "was ultimately persuaded by a line of cases recognizing 'the well-established principle requiring a direct injury in New York' and rejecting jurisdiction based on purely derivative economic injury suffered in-state solely because of the location of the plaintiff's business in-state." [2] Thus, the court decided that the business was lost through the copying of the copyrighted works by American Buddha, in Arizona or Oregon (where American Buddha's servers are located), and not in New York, where Penguin is headquartered. [2]

Opinion of the Court of Appeals

Penguin appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit who then faced the question, "whether, for the purposes of New York's Long-Arm Statute, the situs of injury in copyright infringement cases is the location of the infringing conduct or the location of the plaintiff and, perhaps, the copyright." [2]

Question certified by the Second Circuit

In this appeal, the main question was how New York's personal jurisdiction statute, N.Y. C.P.L.R.§ 302, [5] applied. More specifically, only the third requirement of § 302(a)(3)(ii) [5] was in dispute: "whether American Buddha's allegedly copyright-infringing conduct in Oregon or Arizona cause the requisite injury in New York." [1] Thus, in deciding whether a New York court had jurisdiction to hear this case, given that there was no binding case law as to "what the situs of injury is in an intellectual property case," [2] the Second Circuit certificated a question to the New York Court of Appeals: "In copyright infringement cases, is the situs of injury for the purposes of determining long-arm jurisdiction ... the location of the infringing action or the residence or location of the principal place of business of the copyright holder?" [2]

The Second Circuit also pointed out that the fact that infringement in this case occurred through the media of the Internet and an online library, is a relevant factor that should be taken into consideration, due to the speed and ease with which the Internet may allow out of state actions to cause injury to copyright holders resident in New York. [2]

Question rephrased and answered by New York Court of Appeals

The New York Court of Appeals narrowed and reformulated the question to: "In copyright infringement cases involving the uploading of a copyrighted printed literary work onto the Internet, is the situs of injury for purposes of determining long-arm jurisdiction under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(3)(ii) the location of the infringing action or the residence or location of the principal place of business of the copyright holder?" [9] The court issued its answer, holding that the situs of injury in this case was New York, the location of the copyright holder's principal place of business, reasoning that the location of infringement is a less important matter for cases that happen on the Internet since any material, no matter from where it is uploaded onto the Internet, becomes immediately available to anyone with Internet access. [1]

The New York Court of Appeals clarified that the consequence of unlawful uploading of the four copyrighted books is the instantaneous availability of those works on American Buddha's Web sites for anyone, in New York or elsewhere, with an Internet connection to read. Therefore, the injury caused to Penguin by American Buddha could not be associated with a single location and is dispersed throughout the country and perhaps the world. [1]

The second critical factor that the New York Court of Appeals took into consideration in determining New York as the situs of injury, is a unique bundle of rights granted by the statute to copyright owners, which implies overarching "right to exclude others from using his property". [1]

Decision of the Second Circuit

Having received this response from the New York Court of Appeals that situs of injury was New York, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's earlier dismissal, and remanded the case for further proceedings, including for the district court, to consider the remaining four factors for personal jurisdiction under the long-arm statute, N.Y. C.P.L.R.§ 302(a)(3)(ii). [1] [5]

Impact

The holding of this case expanded the jurisdiction in New York courts over copyrighted materials distributed over Internet. Thus, if anyone has infringed a copyrighted work whose owner resides in or whose principal place of business is in New York, there is now an increased likelihood that jurisdiction will be in a New York court, even if the alleged infringing activities take place outside the State. [10] Moreover, although this holding involves copyright infringement over the Internet, it is possible that it could contribute to "an expansion of jurisdiction for other types of intellectual property cases." [10]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ The four works at issue are Oil! by Upton Sinclair, It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis, The Golden Ass by Apuleius translated by E.J. Kenney, and On the Nature of the Universe by Lucretius translated by R.E. Latham. [3]

Related Research Articles

An affirmative defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal charge is a fact or set of facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, defeats or mitigates the legal consequences of the defendant's otherwise unlawful conduct. In civil lawsuits, affirmative defenses include the statute of limitations, the statute of frauds, waiver, and other affirmative defenses such as, in the United States, those listed in Rule 8 (c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In criminal prosecutions, examples of affirmative defenses are self defense, insanity, entrapment and the statute of limitations.

<i>Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.</i>

Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82, was a copyright case about the Russian language weekly Russian Kurier in New York City that had copied and published various materials from Russian newspapers and news agency reports of Itar-TASS. The case was ultimately decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The decision was widely commented upon and the case is considered a landmark case because the court defined rules applicable in the U.S. on the extent to which the copyright laws of the country of origin or those of the U.S. apply in international disputes over copyright. The court held that to determine whether a claimant actually held the copyright on a work, the laws of the country of origin usually applied, but that to decide whether a copyright infringement had occurred and for possible remedies, the laws of the country where the infringement was claimed applied.

<i>A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.</i> US legal case

A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement of copyright. This was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer file sharing.

<i>In re Aimster Copyright Litigation</i>

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

Long-arm jurisdiction is the ability of local courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign defendants, whether on a statutory basis or through a court's inherent jurisdiction. This jurisdiction permits a court to hear a case against a defendant and enter a binding judgment against a defendant residing outside the jurisdiction concerned.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the standards governing awards of attorneys' fees in copyright cases. The Copyright Act of 1976 authorizes, but does not require, the court to award attorneys' fees to "the prevailing party" in a copyright action. In Fogerty, the Court held that such attorneys'-fees awards are discretionary, and that the same standards should be applied in the case of a prevailing plaintiff and a prevailing defendant.

Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases refers to a growing set of judicial precedents in American courts where personal jurisdiction has been asserted upon defendants based solely on their Internet activities. Personal jurisdiction in American civil procedure law is premised on the notion that a defendant should not be subject to the decisions of a foreign or out of state court, without having "purposely availed" himself of the benefits that the forum state has to offer. Generally, the doctrine is grounded on two main principles: courts should protect defendants from the undue burden of facing litigation in an unlimited number of possibly remote jurisdictions, and courts should prevent states from infringing on the sovereignty of other states by limiting the circumstances under which defendants can be "haled" into court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Derivative work</span> Expressive work created from a major part of a different, original artwork

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work. The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.

<i>Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc.</i> 2007 United States appeals court case

Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063, was decided by the Tenth Circuit in January 2008. The Tenth Circuit overturned a dismissal granted by the District Court upon a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under FRCP12(b)(2). Dudnikov addresses the issues that arise regarding personal jurisdiction and the internet, applying standards set by the Supreme Court of the United States in a line of cases that progressively defined the doctrine and its scope in light of the Fourteenth Amendment.

<i>MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.</i> Court case in the United States

MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, is a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At the district court level, MDY had been found liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's End User License Agreement (EULA) and Terms of Use (ToU) governing the World of Warcraft video game software.
The court's ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court in part, upheld in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals ruled that for a software licensee's violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the license condition and the licensor’s exclusive rights of copyright. However, the court also ruled, contrary to Chamberlain v. Skylink, that a finding of circumvention under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not require a nexus between circumvention and actual copyright infringement.

<i>Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.</i> U.S. District Court case

Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding liability for copyright infringement committed by the users of an online video hosting platform.

<i>Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King</i> American legal case

Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25, is a 1997 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case that helped define the parameters of personal jurisdiction in the Internet context, specifically for passive websites that only advertise local services. The opinion, written by Judge Ellsworth Van Graafeiland, affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York's holding that defendant Richard B. King's Internet website did not satisfy New York's long-arm statute requirements for plaintiff Bensusan Restaurant Corporation to bring a trademark infringement suit in New York. The District Court's decision also likened creating a website to merely placing a product into the stream of commerce, and held that such an act was insufficient to satisfy due process and personal jurisdiction requirements.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

<i>Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.</i> Case in American intellectual property law

Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, is a case in American intellectual property law involving personal jurisdiction in the context of internet contacts.

<i>College Network, Inc. v. Moore Educational Publishers, Inc.</i>

College Network, Inc. v. Moore Educational Publishers, Inc., No. 09-50596 was an unpublished appellate level case in the Fifth Circuit that upheld a district court jury decision to dismiss the purchase of trademarked keywords as infringing. The original suit was brought on a claim of trademark infringement in the purchase of certain advertising keywords that the defendant countered with claims of defamation and tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations. The main issue addressed in the appeal was the sufficiency of the evidence presented in the counterclaims of the defendant. The court upheld the lower court's ruling, but vacated the award for tortious interference.

<i>WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc.</i> American legal case

WPIX, Inc. v. ivi, Inc., was a copyright infringement case heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeals court affirmed the decision of the district court to grant an injunction for the plaintiffs, barring ivi, Inc. from broadcasting television programming over the Internet. This decision set a precedent that broadcast television material can be protected by copyright and cannot be re-transmitted on the Internet without permission.

<i>Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger</i>

Hearst Corp. v. Goldberger was a case out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in which the court developed a reasoned framework to determine the proper exercise of personal jurisdiction in cases involving activity in cyberspace. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant whose website was accessible to New York residents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright Remedy Clarification Act</span> United States copyright law

The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) is a United States copyright law that attempted to abrogate sovereign immunity of states for copyright infringement. The CRCA amended 17 USC 511(a):

In general. Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal Court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner provided by sections 106 through 122, for importing copies of phonorecords in violation of section 602, or for any other violation under this title.

<i>Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc.</i>

Maritz, Inc. v. Cybergold, Inc., 947 F. Supp. 1328, was a personal jurisdiction case in which the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that operator of website, for which server was located in California, was subject to personal jurisdiction in Missouri under "commission of a tortious act" provision of Missouri's long-arm statute, §506.500 RSMo. The case was brought before the court by Marits, Inc. alleging that the Cybergold's use of mark for advertising internet site was a trademark infringement. Cybergold moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the court found that the operational nature of the Internet based service provided a connection for Cybergold to be sued in Missouri.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha, 640 F.3d 497, (2d Cir. N.Y. 2011).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha, 609 F.3d 30, (2d Cir. N.Y. 2010).
  3. ↑ Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Elizabeth A. McNamara and Christopher J. Robinson (December 7, 2011) Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha: New York's long-arm statute grows longer for internet piracy
  4. ↑ Loeb Loeb LLP (April 5, 2011) Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N.Y. C.P.L.R.§ 302 (2006)
  6. ↑ Fantis Foods Inc. v. Standard Importing Co. Inc. et al. Standard Importing Co. Inc. v. Synergal Ltd. 49 N.Y.2d 326.
  7. ↑ Lehigh Valley Industries Inc. and Lehigh Colonial corporation v. Norman Birenbaum and David Birenbaum et al. 527 F.2d 87.
  8. ↑ Sybron Corporation v. Alfred J. Wetzel et al. 46 N.Y.2d 205
  9. ↑ Penguin (USA) Group Inc. v. American Buddha, 2011 NY Slip Op 02079 16 NY3d 295 (N.Y. Mar. 24, 2011).
  10. 1 2 Marc A. Lieberstein, Joseph Petersen, Jared S. Weish; Anthonoy J. Malutta, John C. Knapp (March 30, 2011) Internet Content Providers Beware: You Could End Up in New York.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.