Two children of a comic book illustrator sent a series of copyright grant termination notices to Marvel Comics. Marvel contended that the illustrator’s drawings were works made for hire, and as such, the children were not able to terminate the grants. After unsuccessful negotiations, Marvel brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment finding that the works were made for hire. The two children moved to dismiss the New York action arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction, and filed a second suit in the Central District of California.

New York’s long arm statute provides that a party is subject to personal jurisdiction if it “transacts any business in the state or contracts anywhere to provide goods or services in the state” if the cause of action arises from the transactions or business. CPLR 302(1). The S.D.N.Y.  (McMahon, J.) found that the two children had transacted business in the state by virtue of sending the termination notices. According to the Court:

Defendants dispatched a multitude of self-executing Termination Notices to Marvel entities and licensees in New York in September 2009. This constitutes “transacting business” under section 302(a)(1). By virtue of having mailed the transaction notices to Marvel [the two Kirbys who live in California] “project[ed] themselves into New York and the local stream of commerce.” John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2009 WL 1766003  at *5.

Stormhale brought a copyright infringement action against the Chinese web search provider Baidu.com in the Southern District of New York. Baidu moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction.

New York State’s long arm statute, NYCPLR 301, allows a court to exercise jurisdiction a corporation if it “engaged in such a continuous and systematic course of doing business in New York as to warrant a finding of its presence in the jurisdiction.” Stormhale argued that the standard was met because Baidu listed itself on NASDAQ, made filing with the SEC, and hired local counsel and accountants to assist with the listing. The Court rejected the arguments and found that it could not exercise  personal jurisdiction over Baidu:

Stormhale’s argument fails as a matter of law. The Second Circuit has explained that “the prevailing caselaw accords foreign corporations substantial latitude to list their securities on New York-based stock exchanges and to take the steps necessary to facilitate those listings (such as making SEC filings and designating a depository for their shares) without thereby subjecting themselves to New York jurisdiction for unrelated occurrences.” Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 226 F.3d 88, 97 (2d Cir.2000) copyright action. (citations omitted). Baidu’s mere listing on NASDAQ and ancillary contacts with New York related to that listing do not allow the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over Baidu in a copyright action.