The Honorable Richard H. Battey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1 the District of South Dakota. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ Nos. 96-2228/2233

___________ Keith E. Iverson; Shirlee Iverson, * * Appellants/Cross-Appellees, * * v. * * Appeals from the United States Audrey Grant; Eric Rodwell; Prentice * District Court for the Hall Canada, Inc.; Prentice Hall, Inc.; * District of South Dakota. Arco Publishing, Inc.; Dennis Howard; * Roy Green; American Contract Bridge * [UNPUBLISHED] League, Inc., * * Appellees/Cross-Appellants. *

___________ Submitted: December 24, 1997 Filed: January 7, 1998

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Keith and Shirlee Iverson appeal pro se from the District Court judgment fo r 1 defendants on their copyright infringement and unfair trade practices complaint.-2-

Defendants cross-appeal from the District Court order denying them attorney’s fees
. We affirm. The Iversons claimed that various defendants infringed their copyrighted work by writing, publishing, and distrib uting The Joy of Bridge ( Joy ) and The Joy of Bridge Companionin Canada. These claims fail, however, because United States copyright law has no extraterritorial effect. See Subafilms, L td. v. MGM-Pathe Communications Co. , 24 F.3d 1088, 1094-96 (9th Cir. 1994) (en ba nc) (holding United States copyright law has no extraterritorial operation, and infringing acts occurring outside United States are not actionable); Robert Stigwood Group, Ltd. v. O & Reilly , 5 30 F.2d 1096, 1101 (2d Cir.) (same), cert. denied , 429 U.S. 848 (1976). Th e Iversons also claimed that defendant Prentice Hall Canada, Inc. (PHC), a Canadi ancorporation, infringed their copyright by selling Joy in the United States
. Al thoughthe Iversons produced evidence that PHC had on one occasion sold Jo y direct lyto a South Dakota bookstore, we conclude this was insufficient to establis h person al jurisdiction. See Ventling v. Kraft , 161 N.W.2d 29, 34 (S.D. 1968) (stating South Dakota applies long-arm statute to fullest extent permissible under due process); Bell Paper Box, Inc. v. Trans Western Polymers, Inc. , 53 F.3d 920, 922 & n.2 (8th Cir. 1995) (not ing due process requires minimum contacts with forum state in accordance w ith notions of fair play and substantial justice; although minimum contacts need not include physical presence, contacts mu st be more than attenuated, and merely entering contract with forum resident does not provide requisite contacts between nonresident and forum state (internal citations and quotations omitted)). As t o defendant Arco, we agree with the District Court that because Arco & s license agreement with PHC ended May 10, 1991, an d the Iversons did not show Arco publishe d Joy after that date, their claim--filed March 21, 1995--is barred by th e Copyright Act & s three-year limitati on on civil actions. See 17 U.S.C. § 507(b) (1994).-3-

With respect to the Iversons & claims regarding Bridge--Introduction to Bridg e Bidding “Club Series” ( Club Series ), we find that “reasonable minds could not differ as to the absenceof substantial similarity of expression” between Club Series and the Iversons & work, and thus, the District Court correctly granted summary judgment for these def endants. Banker & s Promotional Mktg. Group, Inc. v. Orange , 926 F.2d 704, 705 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (internal citation and quotations omitted); see als o Moore v. Columbia Pictures Indus. Inc. , 972 F.2d 939, 941-42, 945-46 (8th Cir. 1992) (stating that, to establish copying of protected work, must show access and substantial similarity between two works). Although the Iversons also asserted defendants engaged in unfair trade practices, the only facts alleged relate to the copying of the Iversons & work. We thus conclude the Iversons failed to state a separate unfair trade practices claim. Finally, after carefully reviewing the record, we conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award attorney & s fees to defendants. See 1 7 U. S.C. § 505 (1994); Pinkham v. Camex, Inc. , 84 F.3d 292, 294 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (standard of review); Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. , 510 U.S. 517, 534 n.19 (1994). The Iversons & motions to supplement the record and f or remand are denied. The defendants & motion to dismiss the appeal is denied as moot. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.