To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library






7. Software Co. is a Washington-based publisher of computer software, particularly a program called “3-2-1.” Clone Co., which is also a software publisher, has come out with a competing program called “4-3-2.” Clone Co. has sold over 1,000 copies of 4-3-2 in the state of Washington. Software Co. has sued Clone Co. for federal copyright infringement in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint alleges that 4-3-2 is so similar to 3-2-1 that it has the same “look and feel,” and is therefore a violation of Software Co.’s copyrights. Assume that Clone Co., by selling over 1,000 copies in Washington, has the constitutionally-required minimum contacts with Washington to make it not violative of due process for Clone Co. to have to defend a suit there. Assume further, however, that due to the Washington courts’ desire to cut down on the “litigation explosion,” those courts would not exercise jurisdiction over any suit against a company which, like Clone Co., has no contacts with the state except for selling 1,000 copies of a product in the state. May the federal court for the Western District of Washington take personal jurisdiction over Clone Co. for purposes of the Software Co. copyright suit? (Assume that the method by which service is made on Clone Co. is satisfactory.)  _________________


8. Driver borrowed a car owned by Owner (a New Mexico resident), with Owner’s permission. While Driver was driving the car in Arizona, he hit and injured Pedestrian, an Arizona resident. Pedestrian, realizing that Driver is so poor as to be judgment-proof, has brought a diversity action against Owner in Arizona Federal District Court. Applicable Supreme Court decisions indicate that Owner, by permitting his car to be driven into Arizona, has such minimum contacts with Arizona that it is not a violation of due process for him to be required to defend a suit brought in the Arizona state courts arising out of the accident. However, Arizona’s non-resident motorist statute is relatively restrictive; it allows suit against one who is the driver in an Arizona-based accident, but not against one who owns a car (which he is not driving) that is involved in an Arizona accident. Therefore, Pedestrian would not have been permitted to sue Owner in the Arizona courts unless Owner was served while in Arizona. Pedestrian instituted his federal court suit by making personal service on Owner in New Mexico. May the Arizona district court hear the suit against Owner?  _________________

9. D is a resident of Pennsylvania. While driving one day in Pennsylvania, D collided with P, a pedestrian, who is an Ohio resident who happened to be visiting his sister in Pennsylvania. D has no contacts with Ohio except for the fact that D works in Pennsylvania for a corporation whose state of incorporation and principal place of business are Ohio. P commenced an action for negligence against D in the Ohio state courts. P obtained from the Ohio state courts an order of pre-judgment garnishment (authorized by Ohio statutes) whereby D’s employer was required to deposit with the court each week 20% of D’s take-home pay until the action is resolved. Under the terms of the garnishment order, if P prevails, P will be given the garnished amount (up to the amount of his judgment), but D will have no other liability, assuming that he does not make a general appearance. May the Ohio courts constitutionally proceed with P’s action on this basis? _________________

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following