Dish Network L.L.C. v. Innetra PC

Background

DISH Network L.L.C. sued Innetra PC and Elna Paulette Belle for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501. DISH alleged that Innetra and Belle materially contributed to and induced piracy of DISH’s copyrighted works by providing servers and network infrastructure used in the alleged piracy schemes.

Innetra is described as a limited partnership organized under United Kingdom law, with its principal place of business in Caerphilly, Wales. Belle is identified as Innetra’s general partner and as a citizen and resident of the Seychelles. Innetra provides services including protected virtual private servers, dedicated servers, internet-protocol transit, distributed-denial-of-service mitigation, security certificates, and hosting services.

The jurisdiction issue

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which concerns lack of personal jurisdiction. Because the defendants are foreign defendants, the court applied Rule 4(k)(2). That rule requires that the claim arise under federal law, that the defendant not be subject to personal jurisdiction in any state, and that exercising federal personal jurisdiction comply with due process. The parties did not dispute the first two requirements. The remaining issue was specific personal jurisdiction.

Specific personal jurisdiction requires, among other things, evidence that the defendants deliberately directed activities toward the United States or deliberately took advantage of conducting business there. DISH pointed to alleged network connections with U.S. addresses, arrangements involving Lumen and NTT, and website features such as prices in U.S. dollars, a prominent U.S. telephone-number option, U.S. payment methods, and a U.S.-specific link. The court found that the two examples of connections with U.S. addresses, without more, were insufficient by themselves.

The defendants disputed DISH’s evidence. According to their declaration, Innetra’s dedicated servers were located in Amsterdam, Netherlands; it did not provide dedicated servers in the United States; and it did not contract with companies located in the United States for its services. The court found that the record was disputed and insufficient to resolve whether the defendants deliberately took advantage of the United States.

Ruling

The court deferred ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted DISH 60 days of limited jurisdictional discovery from the date of the order. The discovery may concern only specific personal jurisdiction, including facts about whether the defendants deliberately took advantage of the United States, such as the number of U.S. consumers, income from U.S. consumers, and U.S. business partnerships. It may not address the underlying copyright dispute.

By December 5, 2025, DISH must file a supplemental brief addressing personal jurisdiction. The defendants may respond by December 19, 2025. Each brief is limited to 10 pages. After the briefing, the court will decide whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary. The order did not grant or deny the defendants’ motion to dismiss.