Astral IP Enterprise LTD v. Care20 Fertility Calendar Cycle Tracker

Background

Astral IP Enterprise LTD moved for default judgment against Care20 Fertility Calendar Cycle Tracker. The court reviewed that motion and concluded that supplemental briefing and/or evidence would be helpful before it ruled.

Issues Identified by the Court

The court directed Astral to provide information on eight areas:

1. Care20’s legal status. The court asked whether Astral knew what kind of entity Care20 was. If Care20 was a corporation or similar entity, the court asked where it was incorporated or formed. The order noted that Astral’s pleadings stated that Care20 had its principal place of business in Pakistan.

2. Consent to personal jurisdiction under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Astral had relied in part on 17 U.S.C. § 512(g)(3)(D), which concerns the contents of a counter-notice to a takedown notice and includes consent to jurisdiction in specified circumstances. The court asked whether consent under that provision was limited to a dispute involving infringement, and whether it applied only to claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or Copyright Act or also extended to other claims.

3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k). The court asked whether personal jurisdiction over the federal claims could be based on Rule 4(k), which can establish jurisdiction through service when the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction and exercising jurisdiction is consistent with federal law and the Constitution. The court asked Astral to explain how that rule would apply.

4. Targeting California or the United States. To the extent Astral claimed that Care20 targeted California or the United States, the court asked whether making the application available on Google Play was enough to show targeting and requested relevant authorities.

5. Copyrights in foreign works. The court understood Astral to be claiming that its works were copyrighted under Canadian law but protected under United States law through the Berne Convention. The court asked Astral to confirm that position, explain it, and provide evidence that it had copyrighted works under Canadian law.

6. Images and trademark colors. The court asked Astral to provide larger images of its copyrighted works, its trademark, and the allegedly infringing icon. It also asked whether the trademark used any specific colors.

7. Other online platforms. Astral’s proposed order would have required removal of Care20’s applications from all online platforms where they might be available. The court asked whether there was evidence that Care20’s application was available anywhere besides Google Play.

8. Proposed injunction language. Astral’s proposed order would have required third-party providers to remove the applications after notice and a request from Astral. The court asked whether that language should be revised to better comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d), which limits an injunction’s binding effect to specified parties and persons who receive actual notice and are connected to those parties in the ways described by the rule.

Order

The court ordered Astral to file supplemental briefing and/or evidence within one week of the order’s date. Astral also had to immediately serve the order by email and at Care20’s physical address in Pakistan, consistent with the court’s prior orders, and promptly file a declaration certifying service.

The opinion is an order requesting additional material; it does not state that the court granted or denied Astral’s motion for default judgment.