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Roy Green; American Contract Bridge * [UNPUBLISHED]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 for

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 distributing The Joy of Bridge (Joy) and The Joy of Bridge

Companion in Canada. These claims fail, however, because United States copyright

law has no extraterritorial effect. See Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Communications

Co., 24 F.3d 1088, 1094-96 (9th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (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, 530 F.2d 1096, 1101 (2d

Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 848 (1976).

The Iversons also claimed that defendant Prentice Hall Canada, Inc. (PHC), a

Canadian corporation, infringed their copyright by selling Joy in the United States.

Although the Iversons produced evidence that PHC had on one occasion sold Joy

directly to a South Dakota bookstore, we conclude this was insufficient to establish

personal 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) (noting due process requires minimum contacts with forum state in accordance

with notions of fair play and substantial justice; although minimum contacts need not

include physical presence, contacts must 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 to defendant Arco, we agree with the District Court that because Arco&s

license agreement with PHC ended May 10, 1991, and the Iversons did not show Arco

published Joy after that date, their claim--filed March 21, 1995--is barred by the

Copyright Act&s three-year limitation on civil actions. See 17 U.S.C. § 507(b) (1994).
-3-

With respect to the Iversons& claims regarding Bridge--Introduction to Bridge

Bidding “Club Series” (Club Series), we find that “reasonable minds could not differ

as to the absence of substantial similarity of expression” between Club Series and the

Iversons& work, and thus, the District Court correctly granted summary judgment for

these defendants. Banker&s Promotional Mktg. Group, Inc. v. Orange, 926 F.2d 704,

705 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (internal citation and quotations omitted); see also

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 17

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 for 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.