Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05666/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05666-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

ORDER (No.3:14-cv-05666-LB)

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

GOES INTERNATIONAL, AB,

Plaintiff,

v.

DODUR LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.14-cv-05666-LB 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

COMPEL

[Re: ECF No. 69]

INTRODUCTION

This is a discovery dispute in a copyright-infringement case. The plaintiff alleges that the 

defendant illegally copied its software (a video game) and then distributed two pirated versions 

worldwide. Before the court is the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 69.)1The 

plaintiff has asked the defendant to produce information concerning the revenue that the defendant 

received from distributing the challenged software outside the United States. The defendant has 

refused, answering that U.S. copyright law gives the plaintiff no right to such ―extraterritorial 

damages.‖ The court received briefing and held a hearing on this matter. The court does not now 

decide whether the plaintiff can recover such damages. The factual record is too undeveloped, and 

 

1 Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (―ECF‖); pinpoint citations are to the 

ECF-generated page numbers at the tops of documents.

Case 3:14-cv-05666-LB Document 84 Filed 02/04/16 Page 1 of 7
2

14-cv-05666-LB

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

Northern District of California

the case is not procedurally poised, for that decision. For purposes of this discovery dispute, under 

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court holds only that the requested 

information is relevant to the plaintiff’s claims and (on this record) proportional to the needs of 

this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The court therefore grants the plaintiff’s motion to compel.

STATEMENT

The plaintiff is a Swedish software developer suing to protect its copyrighted video game. The 

plaintiff claims that the defendant — a Chinese company located and working entirely within that 

country — infringed its U.S. copyright by illegally copying its game and then uploading 

copyright-infringing, ―virtual clones‖ of the plaintiff’s product to the Internet for worldwide 

distribution. (See generally First Am. Compl. – ECF No. 27.) The plaintiff claims that the 

defendant thereby breached the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106 et seq. (ECF No. 27 at 32-33 

[¶¶ 69-75].)

The court previously held that it could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Chinese 

corporate defendant. (ECF No. 51.) In sum — and this is not meant to definitively restate the 

court’s jurisdictional holding — this court concluded that the defendant had ―expressly aimed‖ 

acts toward California by distributing the challenged games to U.S. consumers and by generating 

revenue in the United States. (See id. at 13.) The court also decided that the alleged infringement 

had caused the plaintiff ―jurisdictionally significant harm‖ inside the United States. (Id. at 19.) 

Finally, the court found that the plaintiff’s claim arose out of the defendant’s activity in the United 

States, in particular, its distribution of the allegedly infringing games ―via U.S. platforms.‖ (Id. at 

20.)

The court directs the reader to its personal-jurisdiction order (ECF No. 51) for a fuller recital 

of both the factual allegations and the court’s jurisdictional reasoning.

The parties disagree over whether the plaintiff can recover damages flowing from the 

defendant’s distribution of the challenged software outside the United States — so-called 

―extraterritorial damages.‖ The plaintiff says that it can recover such damages; the defendant says 

it cannot. This substantive disagreement over damages has spawned the present discovery dispute. 

Case 3:14-cv-05666-LB Document 84 Filed 02/04/16 Page 2 of 7
3

14-cv-05666-LB

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

Northern District of California

The plaintiff asks that the defendant be compelled to respond to the following requests for 

production: Nos. 4-6, 19, 28-30, 32-36. (ECF No. 69 at 2.) Only two of these requests overtly 

mention ―revenue generated from [the challenged software’s] distribution outside of the United 

States.‖ (See ECF No. 62-1 at 9, 11 [RFP Nos. 19, 39].) But the defendant must feel that all the 

relevant requests potentially implicate global damages: To each of these requests the defendant 

objects that the plaintiff is not entitled to extraterritorial damages. (See ECF No. 62-1, passim.) 

For each challenged request, more exactly, the defendant writes: ―GOES is not entitled to damages 

based on DODUR’s extraterritorial revenue because no alleged infringement was completed 

entirely within the United States in violation of one of the five enumerated rights found in 17 

U.S.C. § 106.‖ (E.g., ECF No. 62-1 at 22.)

The defendant makes other objections, as well, but it is extraterritorial damages alone that 

absorbed the parties’ briefing on the motion to compel, and it is that subject only that this order 

addresses.

ANALYSIS

It is important to recall exactly what is before the court. This is a discovery motion. It is not a 

dispositive motion on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff is not limited to admissible 

evidence; it need not prove its claim. The plaintiff must show only that, given its claim, the 

requested discovery is relevant and proportional to the needs of this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(1). ―Information . . . need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.‖ Id. In deciding 

whether the plaintiff has made that showing, the court can consider even inadmissible evidence. 

Cf. Fed. R. Evid. 104.

But all this limits the court’s present holding. For the reasons given below, the court holds that 

the plaintiff may discover documents that reveal or touch upon the revenue that the defendant 

realized from worldwide distribution of the challenged video games. The court does not hold, and 

this discovery ruling does not imply, that the plaintiff will be permitted to recover extraterritorial 

damages. A substantive ruling on whether the plaintiff can prove such damages must await further 

factual development with legal argument attuned to those fuller facts. The court cannot reach a 

Case 3:14-cv-05666-LB Document 84 Filed 02/04/16 Page 3 of 7
4

14-cv-05666-LB

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

Northern District of California

substantive decision — especially one of such potentially broad consequence — without fuller 

factual development using admissible evidence, and legal argument specifically directed to, and 

elaborated on the basis of, that fuller proof. With that important background in mind, the court 

turns to the Rule 26 analysis.

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure describes the basic scope of discovery 

— i.e., what information parties can rightly demand from one another:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is 

relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,

considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in 

controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ 

resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the 

burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. 

Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be 

discoverable.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).2

Deciding whether proposed discovery is ―relevant‖ to the plaintiff’s claims of course requires 

some investigation into the substance of those claims. The defendant here essentially argues that 

information about its revenue from distribution outside the United States cannot be relevant 

because, as a matter of law, the plaintiff has no right under U.S. copyright law to such 

extraterritorial damages. The parties have given the court full and helpful briefing on the subject of 

such damages. The issue is not simple. Precedent reaches varying decisions depending on the 

precise factual details of the case before it: where was the illegal copy made, where was it 

broadcast from, where broadcast to, and so on. Considering the circumstances of this case, as they 

now appear, the court holds that it is at least plausible that the plaintiff may recover extraterritorial 

damages. Certainly it is too early, and the factual record too embryonic, to rule those out as a 

matter of law. The discovery requests are therefore relevant to the plaintiff’s copyright claim.

Courts in the Ninth Circuit have treated questions of cross-border copyright infringement on 

 

2 The main text sets out the current version of Rule 26(b), which was amended effective December 1, 

2015. ―[I]t is well established that a court generally applies the law in effect at the time of its decision, 

and that if the law changes, . . . the . . . court applies the new rule.‖ Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 

973 n. 21 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Thorpe v. Durham Hous. Auth., 393 U.S. 268, 281 (1969)).

Case 3:14-cv-05666-LB Document 84 Filed 02/04/16 Page 4 of 7
5

14-cv-05666-LB

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

Northern District of California

several relatively recent occasions. Again, no especially easy answer has emerged. Judge 

Armstrong of this court recently gave the basic picture:

While it is clear ―that the United States copyright laws do not reach acts of 

infringement that take place entirely abroad,‖ Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM–Pathe 

Communications Co., 24 F.3d 1088, 1098 (9th Cir. 1994), the more complicated 

question is whether the infringing conduct must occur entirely within the United 

States. Shropshire v. Canning, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1145 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (Koh, 

J.) (―courts are split on whether the infringing act must occur wholly within the 

United States or if the infringing act only must not occur wholly outside of the 

United States.‖). For instance, in Allarcom Pay Television Ltd. v. General 

Instrument Corp., the Ninth Circuit stated that ―one alleged infringement must be 

completed entirely within the United States.‖ 69 F.3d 381, 387 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(holding that the Copyright Act did not apply to authorizing infringing 

transmissions that occurred in Canada or broadcasting infringing material from the 

United States into Canada because the infringing acts were not complete until the 

signal was received in Canada).

In Shropshire, Judge Koh held that a plaintiff stated a claim for copyright 

infringement against a defendant who made a video in Canada that infringed the 

plaintiff’s copyright, and then uploaded that video in Canada to YouTube’s 

California servers. Shropshire, 809 F. Supp. 2d at 1145.

Crunchyroll, Inc. v. Pledge, No. 4:11-cv-2334-SBA, 2014 WL 1347492, *17 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 

2014) (emphasis added). On the more specific question of whether and when U.S. copyright law 

permits the recovery of extraterritorial damages, the Ninth Circuit seems to have laid down a twopart test. To recover such damages, a plaintiff must show that 1) ―an act of infringement 

occurred[ed] within the United States, subjecting [the defendant] to liability . . . under the 

Copyright Act,‖ and 2) the ―damages flowed from extraterritorial exploitation of [the] infringing 

act that occurred in the United States.‖ Los Angeles News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int’l, Ltd., 

149 F.3d 987, 990-92 (9th Cir. 1998).

Much situational complexity lurks within these precedents. But the court thinks that, on the 

facts such as they currently appear in this case, the plaintiff may have a viable claim for damages 

―flow[ing] from extraterritorial exploitation of an infringing act‖ that occurred entirely inside the 

United States. At least, the facts and procedural posture of this case do not allow the court to hold 

as a matter of law that the plaintiff cannot recover such damages. Given the preliminary stage of 

this lawsuit, and the nature of the discovery issue before it, the court has largely accepted the 

factual representations of the parties’ lawyers (where this did not require preferring one party’s 

version of flatly contested facts), and has given more weight to those facts that are supported by 

Case 3:14-cv-05666-LB Document 84 Filed 02/04/16 Page 5 of 7
6

14-cv-05666-LB

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

Northern District of California

some evidentiary filing — i.e., something like merits proof. With that in mind, the facts appear to 

be as follows.

It is undisputed that the defendant downloaded the plaintiff’s protected game from, and 

uploaded its own (allegedly infringing) games to, the Internet by way of Apple, Inc.’s ―AppStore.‖ 

The AppStore is where potential users could download the game. The infringing games have been 

downloaded at least 51,000 times in the United States. The defendant argues that its games were 

not uploaded onto U.S. computer servers; rather, they were uploaded onto Apple servers in China, 

from where Apple (not the defendant) may have made copies onto its U.S. equipment. In any case, 

the defendant argues that uploading alone is not a complete act of infringement that will trigger a 

damages recovery under U.S. copyright law. Maybe most centrally — given the court’s personaljurisdiction ruling and for now, until facts are better developed — in uploading its games to the 

AppStore, the defendant also (maybe purposely, maybe inadvertently) prompted Apple to 

distribute the challenged software worldwide. 

The court holds that, on the present facts, the plaintiff has shown that the requested discovery 

is relevant to its claim under the Copyright Act and, more specifically, to its request for 

extraterritorial damages. The requested discovery is also ―proportional to the needs of the case.‖ 

The information specifically in question — that showing the defendant’s revenue from distribution 

of the challenged games outside the United States — should be relatively ready to hand. Or readily 

gotten using data-analysis software. The plaintiff has a litigant’s usual right to such information 

under Rule 26. The court is aware that the defendant is located in China and (as it describes

matters) is a small concern with limited resources. The production requests here, though, should 

not be an excessive burden. Furthermore, although it is a concern, the defendant’s financial 

wherewithal is not decisive. The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 26 state: ―[C]onsideration of 

the parties’ resources does not foreclose discovery requests addressed to an impecunious party, nor 

justify unlimited discovery requests addressed to a wealthy party.‖ Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) advisory 

comm. notes (2015 amends.) Both parties should tailor their efforts to the needs of this case. 

Discovery and its costs are neither shield to ward off nor hammer to throttle the opposing party. 

To the contrary: ―The parties and the court have a collective responsibility to consider the 

Case 3:14-cv-05666-LB Document 84 Filed 02/04/16 Page 6 of 7
7

14-cv-05666-LB

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

Northern District of California

proportionality of all discovery and consider it in resolving discovery disputes.‖ Id. Finally, the 

court thinks it relevant that the parties are moving toward settlement discussions. The requested 

discovery may ―likely benefit‖ both parties in that endeavor by helping to accurately fill out the 

picture of this developing lawsuit. See id. (proportionality weighs both ―expense‖ and ―likely 

benefit‖ of discovery).

The court expresses its appreciation to both parties for their excellent discussion of 

extraterritorial damages in copyright law. Were the factual record better developed, more firmly 

established, and were this case in an appropriate procedural posture, the parties’ good analyses 

would have permitted a substantive decision. But, as things stand, a merits decision must await 

another day.

The court remains open to staging damages discovery after an early summary-judgment 

motion on the extent of the alleged infringement. The court understands that the defendant wanted 

to avoid the expense of litigation. But the court sees no other way to resolve this dispute.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the court grants the plaintiff’s motion to compel the requested discovery. 

This disposes of ECF No. 69.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2016

______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05666-LB Document 84 Filed 02/04/16 Page 7 of 7