ArticlesLaw FirmsOrganizations
Follow

IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—9th Cir.: After eight-year saga, copyright owner manages to land an alleged Vietnamese infringer in U.S. courts, (Jul 22, 2022)

Law Firms Mentioned:King and Spalding, LLP | Witkow Baskin
Organizations Mentioned:King & Spalding, LLP | Lang Van, Inc. | VNG Corp.

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The court of appeals reverses the district court for the second time in a case that has been pending since 2014.

A Vietnamese company that makes accessible within the United States a website and a downloadable app that enable the exchange of unlicense ...

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The court of appeals reverses the district court for the second time in a case that has been pending since 2014.

A Vietnamese company that makes accessible within the United States a website and a downloadable app that enable the exchange of unlicensed music files can be sued in a California federal court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held. The court, reversing the district court for the second time in a case that has not advanced beyond the jurisdictional stage in eight years, found that the lower court erred by considering only the Vietnamese company’s contacts with California rather than aggregating its contacts from around the United States (Lang Van, Inc. v. VNG Corp., July 21, 2022, Bataillon, J.).

The case arises out of the activities of VNG, a Vietnamese corporation that originally developed online games but later began Zing MP3, a Vietnam-hosted and Vietnamese-language website that makes copyrighted music available for download on a worldwide basis. In 2011, VNG released an MP3 mobile application in the Apple App Store, and in 2012, in the Google Play store.

The Vietnamese company’s activities drew the attention of Lang Van, a California corporation and producer and distributor of Vietnamese music and entertainment. The California company, which owns copyrights to more than 12,000 songs and 600 original programs, sued the Vietnamese company in the Central District of California in 2014. The district court initially dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the court of appeals reversed in 2016, holding that the court should have allowed jurisdictional discovery. On remand, the district court again dismissed the case on personal jurisdiction grounds, leading to this appeal.

Personal jurisdiction. The court of appeals reversed again, holding that personal jurisdiction had been established by the California company. The district court’s central error, the court of appeals observed, was to consider only the Vietnamese company’s contacts with California. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), where a case arises under federal law against a foreign defendant whose contacts are so scattered among states that none of them would have jurisdiction, the court is to consider whether the defendant has ample contacts with the United States as a whole. In the eyes of the court of appeals, the Vietnamese company did.

The foreign company had ample contacts within the United States, the court of appeals found, because it purposefully targeted American companies and their intellectual property. Indeed, a former employee of the company testified that his job entailed sourcing, identifying, cataloging, and distributing content through Zing MP3 without regard to authorization from content owners, including the California company that had brought the complaint. Moreover, although the company’s primary audience was in Vietnam, it did not geoblock access within the United States, and it also made its app available to U.S. residents. Finally, the company also sought and received trademark protection with the USPTO. All that was more than enough, the court held, to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements.

Venue. Venue was also proper in the United States, the court of appeals held, primarily because the International Intellectual Property Alliance had found, with regard to copyright enforcement, that “[Vietnamese] civil and criminal courts are not a realistic avenue for copyright owners.” Thus, the company’s bid to dismiss the case on forum non conveniens grounds was also without merit.

The Case is No. 19-56452.

Attorneys: Cory Alexander Baskin (Witkow Baskin) for Lang Van, Inc. Kelly L. Perigoe (King and Spalding, LLP) for VNG Corp.

Companies: Lang Van, Inc.; VNG Corp.

MainStory: TopStory Copyright TechnologyInternet GCNNews AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews GuamNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews