By James Kachmar

Personal jurisdiction is an issue that a court must typically decide in determining whether it can hear a case brought against a nonresident defendant, for instance, when a resident of Nevada is sued in a California court. Unless a defendant has “continuous and systematic” contacts with a forum state, personal jurisdiction is generally limited to specific jurisdiction, that is, when the defendant has done some act or made some contact with the forum state that gives rise to the claims against it. Last month, the Ninth Circuit considered the issue of personal jurisdiction in the context of a willful copyright infringement claim. 

Washington Shoe Company has done business in the state of Washington for more than 100 years. A-Z Sporting Goods, Inc. is an Arkansas company that operates a single retail store in Alma, Arkansas. It does not sell products over the internet and apparently conducts no business in Washington, or even outside of Arkansas for that matter. 

Between 2007 and 2009, a Washington Shoe salesman regularly visited A-Z in Arkansas and A-Z would purchase a number of items from Washington Shoe. Washington Shoe later discovered that A-Z was selling two boots that appeared to infringe on Washington Shoe’s copyrights. Washington Shoe’s attorney sent a cease and desist letter to A-Z and in response A-Z sold the offending boots to a thrift store. Washington Shoe then sued A-Z for copyright infringement in a federal district court in Washington. A-Z moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it since it did not have any contacts with the state of Washington.

Continue Reading Copyright Infringement and Personal Jurisdiction

Imagine you just finished reading your favorite book series about vampires and werewolves, which you purchased at Costco at a significant discount.  Or perhaps you bought your favorite Dracula knockoff on eBay from an overseas retailer.  Finding no need to re-read the books, or re-watch the movies, you decide to recoup some of your hard-earned money by selling the books and movies on Craigslist.  Have you committed copyright infringement?  Possibly.

The answer to this question may soon be understood when the United States Supreme Court rules on the matter of Supap Kirtsaeng d/b/a Blue Christine99 v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (”Kirtsaeng”).  In the Kirtsaeng case, the United States Supreme Court has been asked to define the limits of the First Sale Doctrine under United States Copyright Law.  The decision may have a far-reaching impact on the ability of so-called “gray market” retailers such as Costco and eBay to sell copyrighted goods at discount prices.Continue Reading Is it the Twilight of a New Era for the First Sale Doctrine?

By: Dale C. Campbell 

The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument last month in the Kirtsaeg v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. case that may finally determine if the First-Sale Doctrine in copyright law applies to goods manufactured outside of the United States. 

The holder of a U. S. copyright has the “exclusive rights . . . to distribute copies . . . of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership . . ..”  (17 U.S.C. § 106(3).)  Importation of a copyrighted work into the United States without the authority of the owner of the copyright constitutes infringement.  (17 U.S.C. § 602(a).)  The First-Sale Doctrine is codified in section 109(a) and provides that, notwithstanding other provisions of the Copyright Act, “the owner of a particular copy . . . lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy . . ..”  The First-Sale Doctrine is based on the concept that, once the copyright owner consents to the first sale of a protected copy, the owner has exhausted its right to control the subsequent distribution or sale of those copies.Continue Reading THE FIRST-SALE DOCTRINE AND FOREIGN MANUFACTURED GOODS: THE ANSWER IS FORTHCOMING