a. Facts-
Π is a company that encrypts DVDs for motion picture corporations, located in
Cal. Δ is computer engineer located in Texas. Δ developed a code that defeated
Π’s encryption software. Δ had a “feeling it was illegal” and “heard of a
company that encrypts DVDs”. Π then sued for injunctive relief for
infringement. Δ argued that Jx is improper, Π responded by saying Δ’s harm was
done in CA.
b. Procedural
History- Trial Ct held Jx was proper, Cal Sup Ct reversed
c. Issue-
Whether knowledge of [potential] harm is sufficient to establish “express
aiming” for Jx purposes
d. Holding-
No, knowledge of [potential] harm is NOT enough to satisfy “express aiming”
requirements to establish Jx
i.
Dissent: By intentionally uploading
decryption code on site, Δ was NOT targeting a specific person or corp, but an entire industry. Δ also knew that these
industries were in CA, thus Δ “knew” that his acts would have harm in CA
e. Rule-
To exercise Jx over a non-resident Δ, Π must show contacts that establish
“expressly aimed” conduct towards the forum State
f. Rationale-
Two ways to establish personal Jx:
i.
Merely asserting that a Δ “knew or
should have known” harm would be done in forum State is NOT enough
ii.
Π must point to contacts that establish
“expressly aimed” conduct towards the forum State
g. Notes-
i.
Ct applied the Effects Test (3 part test)
1. Intentional
tortious action –He intentionally made the site
2. Harm
in forum State- harm was felt in CA
3. Δ
has knowledge that harm would be felt in forum State- But did he have knowledge
that the harm would be felt in CA?
ii.
It was questionable whether he knew that
a company would sue him in CA
No comments:
Post a Comment