•     In FTA Market, Inc. v. Vevi, Inc., No. 11 CV 4789(VB) (S.D. N.Y., February 1, 2012), the plaintiff sued a former employee and an entity he created for allegedly seeking to lure away the plaintiff’s customers in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and other laws. The Court explained that a two-year statute of limitations applied to civil claims under the CFAA. The complaint and exhibits indicated that the alleged improper accessing of the plaintiff’s computer was discovered by May 2009, which was more than two years before the suit was filed.  Therefore, the CFAA claim was barred by the statute of limitation.

•     In TriTeq Lock v. Innovative Secured Solutions, Civil Action 10 CV 1304 (N.D. Illinois, February 1, 2012), this federal lawsuit followed protracted litigation involving the same parties in state court.  The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim because, at the time of the initiation of the lawsuit, the plaintiff had not registered the copyrights at issue. The fact that the plaintiff apparently registered the copyrights after the complaint was filed did not avoid the requirement that an infringement suit may only be initiated on the basis of a registered copyright.  The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) claim, explaining that the complaints’ allegations regarding “damage” and “loss” were too conclusory to satisfy the requirements of that statute.

 •    In Alpha Media Works, Inc. v. Perception Research Services, Inc., No. 09 Civ. 9563(GBD) (S.D. N,Y., February 9, 2012), in this dispute over whether the defendant unlawfully copied and distributed the plaintiff’s software, the Court granted the defendant summary judgment. The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was preempted by the Copyright Act.  The Court found that the plaintiff had not established that the defendant’s software featuring an outdoor car driver was “substantially similar” to the defendant’s software featuring an outdoor car driver.  Therefore, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim of copyright infringement.

•     In Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Media, LLC. No. C 11–03906 WHA (N.D. California, January. 17, 2012), in this trademark infringement suit, the defendant, a Florida limited liability corporation, moved to dismiss for personal jurisdiction, arguing it did no business in California.  The Court, however, found that that there was personal jurisdiction because the defendant’s websites and other communications created the impression that it did indeed have offices and employees based in Silicon Valley, which was where the plaintiff has its corporate headquarters.  The defendant purposefully availed itself of the benefits of the California by attempting to persuade potential customers that it was based in California, even though, in fact, its offices were in Florida.

•     In Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., No. C 09–5939 PJH (N.D. California, January 3, 2012), the plaintiff sought to hold the defendant, a company that registers domain names, responsible for “cybersquatting” committed by the owners of two domain names registered by the defendant.  The Court granted the defendant summary judgment on the direct cybersquatting claim, concluding that there was no evidence that the defendant actually used the domain names at issue or that the defendant acted in bad faith.  Moreover, the Court granted the defendant summary judgment on the plaintiff’s contributory cybersquatting claim.  The Court explained that the defendant’s routing of domain names does not constitute the level of control over domain names that would be needed to establish contributory cybersquatting.

•     In Fraserside IP LLC v. Hammy Media, Ltd., No. C11–3025–MWB (N.D.Iowa, January 17, 2012), in this copyright infringement action, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants violated its copyrights to adult movies. The defendants, based in Cyprus, sold and distributed adult movies via the internet. The defendants generated approximately 20% of their revenue from the United States market. The Court found that Iowa as a forum lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because the defendants had not specifically targeted their website to the Iowa market and Iowa lacked the necessary quality and quantity of contacts with the forum. The defendants had no offices or employees in Iowa, and the plaintiff’s allegations regarding defendants’ contacts with Iowa were simply conclusory.

 

 

* * *