Voodoo SAS v. SayGames LLC

Background

Voodoo SAS sued SayGames LLC over SayGames’ mobile game Jelly Shift. Voodoo alleged that Jelly Shift copied protected expression from Voodoo’s game Shape Shifter 3D and duplicated the design and colors of Shape Shifter 3D’s app icon. Voodoo asserted copyright infringement, trade-dress infringement and false advertising under the Lanham Act, false advertising under California law, and unfair competition under California law.

Voodoo is described in the opinion as a French company with its principal place of business in Paris, France. SayGames is described as a Belarusian company with its principal place of business in Minsk, Belarus. Neither company maintains offices in the United States.

SayGames moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which allows dismissal when the court lacks personal jurisdiction—the court’s legal power over the defendant. SayGames also moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which challenges whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Personal Jurisdiction in California

The court considered whether SayGames had sufficient connections with California for the case to proceed there. For specific personal jurisdiction, Voodoo had to show that SayGames deliberately directed its conduct toward California, that the claims arose from or related to that conduct, and that exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable.

The court found that Voodoo met the requirement of alleging an intentional act because Voodoo alleged that SayGames copied its game and app icon. But the court held that Voodoo did not show that SayGames expressly aimed the alleged conduct at California. The court concluded that distributing Jelly Shift in the United States, using English on SayGames’ website, linking to the United States versions of app stores, and targeting the United States market did not demonstrate targeting of California specifically.

The court also found that references to California law in SayGames’ privacy policy and terms of use did not establish that SayGames targeted California residents. Similarly, SayGames’ agreements with California-based Apple and Google, including provisions concerning California law, jurisdiction, and venue, did not show that SayGames directed its alleged infringement toward California. The court further concluded that pre-litigation letters discussing the application of United States copyright law did not concede personal jurisdiction in California.

The court held that Voodoo also failed to show that its claims arose from California-related activities. Voodoo’s general statements that the alleged infringement caused harm in California did not identify the relevant California activities or explain how those activities caused the injury. Because Voodoo failed to satisfy the first two parts of the specific-jurisdiction test, the court did not reach the reasonableness portion of that test.

Nationwide Jurisdiction

Voodoo alternatively relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), which can allow a federal court to exercise jurisdiction based on a defendant’s contacts with the United States as a whole when no individual state has jurisdiction. The court found that the federal-law and no-other-state-jurisdiction requirements were satisfied, but held that Voodoo did not adequately show that SayGames deliberately targeted the United States or that the claims arose from SayGames’ United States-related conduct. Voodoo’s two-sentence argument on those points was insufficient. The court therefore held that Voodoo failed to establish jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2).

Jurisdictional Discovery

The court treated Voodoo’s statement about possible discovery as a request for jurisdictional discovery and denied it. The court found that Voodoo had not narrowed its earlier broad discovery proposal and had not explained how additional discovery might change the jurisdictional analysis.

Disposition

Because Voodoo failed to make the required initial showing that the court had personal jurisdiction over SayGames, Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted SayGames’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the action. The court did not reach SayGames’ Rule 12(b)(6) arguments about whether Voodoo stated valid claims. The Clerk was directed to close the file.