Rapp's attorney complied by supplying affidavits from six individuals who had information concerning Rapp's play and logo. After receiving no further reply from WDC, Rapp filed the complaint in this action. WDC has moved to dismiss Rapp's complaint on two grounds, improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction. Because this is a copyright action, these inquiries are combined. Thus, in this action, a determination of venue is really a determination of personal jurisdiction, although limited by the boundaries of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Personal jurisdiction is a fact-specific inquiry.
The focus is on the relationship among the defendant, the forum state and the litigant. AMP Inc. v. Methode Elecs. WDC has properly raised a jurisdictional defense, thus, it is Rapp's burden to prove, by affidavits or other competent evidence, that WDC has sufficient contact with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to establish personal jurisdiction. This Court is bound to apply the long arm statute of Pennsylvania in determining whether or not personal jurisdiction exists. Pennsylvania's long arm statute allows this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction to the limits of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.