United States District Court in San Francisco

“ And there is no indication that defendants or their representatives “frequently travel to California on business.” Harris Rutsky, 328 F3d at 1132-33; see Doc #33-2 (discussing defendants’ travel in the United States and Europe) . On the other hand, modern technology has reduced the burden of litigating in another country (see Sinatra v National Enquirer, 854 F2d 1191, 1199 (9th Cir 1988) ) , and defendants’
personal involvement with the litigation is not likely to be extensive. ”

“ There is no mechanical or quantitative test for jurisdiction under the International Shoe reasonableness standard, and we shall not attempt to list all the factors that might, in a different case, be part of an assessment of the reasonableness of subjecting a defendant to jurisdiction. ”

“ Plaintiffs rarely claim an injury in a state other than their home state, and plaintiffs rarely allege the kind of metaphysical internet free speech injuries or electron-based injuries that Sapient alleges here. ”

“ The fifth factor - the most efficient judicial resolution of the controversy - weighs against jurisdiction. In this case, the most efficient resolution of the controversy is in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Count II of plaintiff’s complaint, which seeks a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, is the mirror image of Explorologist’s copyright infringement claim pending in Pennsylvania. Explorologist Ltd v Sapient, No 07-1848 LP (E D Pa) . ”

“ For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is GRANTED.
I
The YouTube internet video website is an entirely userdriven medium. Anyone with access to the internet can sign up for a YouTube account and upload any video file to YouTube’s servers so that the file may be accessed and viewed anywhere in the world, all for free. For instance, a family might post a video of a child’s soccer game in California so that grandparents may view it in Illinois. ”

“ Those provisions apply to California residents, not Pennsylvania internet users, inanimate computer files or lawsuits filed by British residents against a Pennsylvania resident in Pennsylvania federal court asserting claims under British law. California is not the worldwide regulator of free speech in the digital age. The Supreme Court held in Asahi that courts violate due process when they adjudicate lawsuits with no connection to the forum state. ”

“ More troublingly, a YouTube user might film his favorite musician’s live performance and post the footage on YouTube, potentially discouraging other fans from purchasing the musician’s live performance DVD. YouTube does not actively monitor the content of the postings on its website. ”

“ California does not appear to be important to the plaintiff’s interest in convenient and effective relief. In fact, quite the opposite: “ [N] o doctorate in astrophysics is required to deduce that trying a case where one lives is almost always a plaintiff’s preference.” Roth, 942 F2d at 624. Sapient is already litigating in his home state against Explorologist regarding the NOVA video. ”

“ The fourth factor - the forum state’s interest in adjudicating the dispute - weighs against personal jurisdiction. Sapient resides in Pennsylvania, not California. “Because the plaintiff is not a California resident, California’s legitimate interests in the dispute have considerably diminished.” Asahi, 480 US at 114. Sapient alleges no violations of California law. See FDIC, 828 F2d at 1444. YouTube is a California company but is not a party to this litigation. California has little interest in the outcome of this case. ”

“ Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents [in a takedown notice to an internet service provider] * * * that material or activity is infringing * * * shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer * * * who is injured by such misrepresentation [] as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing * * *. ”

“ The NOVA video includes “three seconds” of another video clip in which a man named Dr C J Hughes describes Geller’s asserted psychic powers (“Hughes clip”) . Doc #1 at ¶14. It is that second clip – the Hughes clip within the NOVA video – that prompted the instant dispute. Explorologist owns the copyright to the Hughes clip. Doc #1 at ¶14. Plaintiff alleges that on March 23, 2007, an agent of defendants sent YouTube a takedown notice identifying plaintiff’s post as infringing and
demanding that the video be removed. ”

“ The Ninth Circuit has since expanded the first prong, also known as the purposeful availment or purposeful direction requirement, “apply [ing] different purposeful availment tests to contract and tort cases.” ”

“ The court may presume that England has a sovereign interest in adjudicating a claim against a British corporation and a British resident. See Harris Rutsky, 328 F3d at 1133. Moreover, the video clip at the heart of the dispute was filmed in England (see Doc #26 Exh 5 at ¶7) and features Dr Hughes, whom defendants claim is British (see Doc #26 Exh 2) . Defendants’ lack of an agent in the United States is also relevant to sovereignty considerations. See Core-Vent, 11 F3d at 1489; Roth, 942 F2d at ”

“ For purposes of the present case we conclude that the following seven factors are relevant * * *.”) . The seven factors must be balanced against one another to determine reasonableness. See Roth v Garcia Marquez, 942 F2d 617, 623, 625 (9th Cir 1991) . In this case, each factor suggests that jurisdiction is unreasonable.
1
The extent of defendants’ “purposeful interjection” into California was not substantial, comprising only the single takedown notice sent to YouTube. ”