Insufficient Evidence of Substantial Revenue Derived in Georgia to Support Camouflage Copyright Infringement Claim
Judge Clay Land of the Middle District of Georgia granted Wild Trees’ motion (order here), further holding that its alternative motion for partial summary judgment was moot. The Court first traced the shifting of the burden from the plaintiff to the defendant and then back to the plaintiff, citing Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers Int’l, Inc., 593 F.3d 1249, 1257 (11th Cir. 2010). The Court further noted that where conflicts in the evidence existed, “’the court must construe all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.’ Meier ex rel. Meier v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 288 F.3d 1264, 1269 (11th Cir. 2002).”
In reaching his conclusion that dismissal was appropriate, Judge Land noted there is a two-step inquiry. To be subject to personal jurisdiction, Wild Trees must fall under Georgia’s long-arm statute and the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Diamond Crystal, 593 F.3d at 1257. The Court first concluded that there was insufficient evidence to infer that the substantial revenue required by subsection 3 of Georgia’s long-arm statute had been met. Therefore, it was unnecessary to consider the second step. Motion dismissed.
Jordan Outdoor Enterprises, Ltd. v. Hubei Wild Trees Textiles Co., LTD., 4:12-CV-297, Dkt. No. 44 (M.D. Ga. April 9, 2014) (Judge Clay D. Land).