Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01753/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01753-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

16cv1753-BTM-BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a 

Washington corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

ACADEMIC SOFTWARE HQ INC., 

a Nevada corporation,

Defendant.

Case No.: 16cv1753-BTM-BLM

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER 

TO SHOW CAUSE 

[ECF NO. 12]

Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation, a Washington corporation (“Microsoft”), has 

sued defendant Academic Software HQ Inc., a Nevada corporation (“Academic 

Software”), for copyright and trademark infringement based on its allegedly 

infringing advertisement and sale of Microsoft Software on its internet website, 

academicsoftwarehq.com. On April 7, 2017, the Court issued an order to show 

cause (“OSC”) requiring Microsoft to show Academic Software is subject to in 

personam jurisdiction in California, and that service of process on Academic 

Software was effective. (ECF No. 12.) Microsoft has filed a timely response to the 

OSC. (ECF No. 13.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds Microsoft 

has shown valid service of process and has demonstrated sufficient contacts to 

establish a prima facie case that Academic Software is subject to general personal 

jurisdiction in California. The Court will therefore discharge the OSC.

//

Case 3:16-cv-01753-BTM-BLM Document 16 Filed 05/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

16cv1753-BTM-BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. BACKGROUND

The Court previously discussed Microsoft’s claims in detail in the OSC, and 

accordingly revisits only those aspects relevant to the present issues regarding 

personal jurisdiction over Academic Software. 

Microsoft claims Academic Software infringed on Microsoft software, 

associated trademarks and service marks, by advertising and selling unlicensed 

Microsoft software through its website, academicsoftwarehq.com. Compl. ¶¶ 10-

11. In support of its claims, Microsoft identified two incidents in October and 

November 2015 in which infringing Microsoft Office 2010 and Office Professional 

Plus 2010 software suites were purchased and distributed to an investigator. Id.

¶¶ 12-14. 

On August 3, 2016, Microsoft filed a proof of service showing that on July 

14, 2016, Academic Software was served the summons and complaint by personal 

delivery to Patty Linden, “authorized to accept service at US Corp., registered 

agents,” at an address in Las Vegas. (ECF No. 6.) After no response to the 

complaint was filed, Microsoft requested entry of default, and on August 15, 2016, 

the clerk entered the default of Academic Software. (ECF Nos. 8.)

Microsoft thereafter filed a motion for entry of default judgment. (ECF No. 

9.) In evaluating the motion, the Court sua sponte considered whether it had 

acquired personal jurisdiction over Academic Software. It noted that the complaint 

alleged Academic Software “is or was” a Nevada corporation, which called into

question whether delivery of the summons and complaint to its registered agents 

was effective service given it was a potentially defunct corporation. The Court also 

was unable to confirm that Academic Software was subject to general or specific 

jurisdiction in California, since it was apparently domiciled in Nevada, its website 

did not appear to target residents of California, and the investigator who made the 

purchases of infringing software appeared to have done so from Pennsylvania. 

The Court thus denied the motion for default judgment and issued the OSC in order 

Case 3:16-cv-01753-BTM-BLM Document 16 Filed 05/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

16cv1753-BTM-BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to require Microsoft to demonstrate the validity of its service of the summons and 

complaint, and to show Academic Software was subject to general or specific 

personal jurisdiction in this forum.

On April 27, 2017, Microsoft filed a timely response to the OSC. (ECF No. 

13). Microsoft presents evidence that Academic Software’s Nevada corporate 

status was revoked effective July 1, 2016, but that service on U.S. Corp., its former 

agent for service of process, was valid under a Nevada statute that provides a

three-year grace period following revocation during which a corporation can be 

validly served through its registered agent. 

With regard to whether Academic Software is subject to in personam 

jurisdiction in this forum, Microsoft submits evidence that the shipping document 

attached to a shipment of disks of infringing software shows the package was sent 

to the investigator from an address in San Diego.1 Microsoft also submits evidence 

that Shawn Green, Academic Software’s sole officer, has formed two California 

limited liability companies with offices at the same San Diego street address as the 

one identified in the Academic Software shipping document. Microsoft contends 

this evidence shows Academic Software had sufficient contacts with California to 

support subjecting it to personal jurisdiction here.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Validity of Service

The Court first addresses Microsoft’s contention that it has shown valid 

service on Academic Software.

A corporation may be served “in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(e)(1),” that 

is, “by ... following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts 

of general jurisdiction where the district court is located or where service is 

 

1

 The complaint alleges the software was distributed to the investigator “via Internet download.” Compl. ¶ 15. It 

now appears the software was actually sent to the investigator via disk. Decl. Kevin Chow ¶ 2 (stating Microsoft 

software was “to be delivered as a disk by shipment to an address of my choosing”). 

Case 3:16-cv-01753-BTM-BLM Document 16 Filed 05/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

16cv1753-BTM-BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

made....” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(A). 

Microsoft contends the service at issue here was made in Nevada, pursuant 

to the following provision:

All legal process and any demand or notice authorized by law to be 

served upon the corporation... may be served upon the registered 

agent listed as the registered agent of the entity in the records of the 

Secretary of State, personally or by leaving a true copy thereof with a 

person of suitable age and discretion at the most recent street address 

of the registered agent shown on the information filed with the 

Secretary of State pursuant to chapter 77 of NRS. Service of legal

process or any demand or notice pursuant to this subsection is valid 

regardless of whether the status of the entity in the records of the 

Secretary of State is in default or is revoked and regardless of any 

debts or disputes between the entity and its registered agent if such 

process is served within 3 years after the entity's date of default.

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 14.020(2) (emphasis added). 

The Court agrees Microsoft’s service on Academic Software was valid under

§ 14.020(2) of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Microsoft has submitted a website 

printout of business entity information on file with the Nevada Secretary of State.

Decl. Audra Mori ¶ 2, Ex. A. This document shows Academic Software is a Nevada 

corporation whose registered agent for service of process is United States 

Corporation Agents, Inc., 500 N. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 300A, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Decl. Audra Mori ¶ 2, Ex. A. Its status is identified as “revoked,” apparently 

because it is delinquent on renewal fees due May 31, 2015. See id.; Resp. OSC 

at 5:4-5. Microsoft’s proof of service shows Academic Software was served via 

delivery of the summons and complaint to Patty Linden, “at US Corp.,” clearly 

Academic Software’s registered agent. Proof of Serv. at 2. Service was made on 

July 14, 2016, within three years of the May 31, 2015 revocation.2 Accordingly, 

 

2

 Even if the revocation did not take effect the same day Academic Service’s annual renewal fees became due 

on May 31, 2015, the Court is satisfied service took place within the required three-year period. The corporation 

was formed May 15, 2014, and any revocation of its corporate status necessarily would have occurred thereafter, 

Case 3:16-cv-01753-BTM-BLM Document 16 Filed 05/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

16cv1753-BTM-BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

delivery of the summons and complaint to Patty Linden at U.S. Corp resulted in

effective service on Academic Software under Nevada Revised Statutes 

§ 14.020(2).

B. In Personam Jurisdiction

Microsoft submits that Academic Software’s shipment of infringing software 

from San Diego, and Green’s formation of two California limited liability companies 

operating from the same San Diego shipping address, show Academic Software 

had sufficient contacts with California to be subjected to personal jurisdiction here. 

Where “no federal statute authorizes personal jurisdiction, the court applies 

the law of the state in which the court sits.” Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs. 

Inc., 647 F.3d 1218, 1223 (9th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, whether the Court has 

personal jurisdiction over Academic Software is determined in accordance with 

California law. “California’s long-arm statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10, is 

coextensive with federal due process requirements, so the jurisdictional analyses 

under state law and federal due process are the same.” Id. (citing 

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800-01 (9th Cir. 2004)). 

“For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant 

consistent with due process, that defendant must have ‘certain minimum contacts’ 

with the relevant forum ‘such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 

“traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”’” Id. (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. 

v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 

463 (1940))). 

Depending on the nature and scope of the defendant's contacts with the 

forum, jurisdiction may be general or specific to a cause of action. Roth v. Garcia 

Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 620 (9th Cir. 1991). When a defendant’s contacts with 

the forum state are “substantial” or “continuous and systematic,” general 

 

and within three years of the July 14, 2016 service.

Case 3:16-cv-01753-BTM-BLM Document 16 Filed 05/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

16cv1753-BTM-BLM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

jurisdiction may be exercised over that defendant for any cause of action, even if 

it is unrelated to the defendant’s activities in the forum state. Schwarzenegger, 

374 F.3d at 801-02; Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assocs., 557 F.2d 1280, 1287 

(9th Cir. 1977). 

“For general jurisdiction to exist over a nonresident defendant..., the 

defendant must engage in ‘continuous and systematic general business 

contacts... that ‘approximate physical presence’ in the forum state.” 

Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 801 (quoting Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia, 

S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 416 (1984); Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat’l, 

Inc., 223 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2000)) (internal citation omitted). “Factors to 

be taken into consideration are whether the defendant makes sales, solicits or 

engages in business in the state, serves the state's markets, designates an agent 

for service of process, holds a license, or is incorporated there.” Bancroft & 

Masters, 223 F.3d at 1086. Here, Green was Academic Software’s sole corporate 

officer, and it appears, based on Microsoft’s submission, that he was operating

from the San Diego address from which Academic Software’s infringing software 

was shipped. The Court finds Microsoft’s evidence sufficient, at least at this early 

stage of the action, to make a prima facie showing of general jurisdiction. The 

Court’s decision in this regard is not final and may be challenged by subsequent 

motion.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, the OSC is DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED:

Dated: May 30, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01753-BTM-BLM Document 16 Filed 05/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6