Beijing iQIYI Sci. & Tech. Co. v. iTalk Glob. Commc'ns, Inc., CIVIL NO. 6-19-CV-00272-ADA
| Decision Date | 17 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 6-19-CV-00272-ADA |
| Parties | BEIJING IQIYI SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., BEIJING QIYI CENTURY SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., Plaintiffs, v. ITALK GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS, INC., A TEXAS CORPORATION, DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Before the Court is Defendant iTalk Global Communications, Inc.'s ("iTalk Global") Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens (ECF No. 24), Plaintiffs Beijing iQIYI Science & Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing QIYI Century Science & Technology Co., Ltd.'s (collectively, "iQIYI") Response (ECF No. 31), Defendant iTalk Global's Reply (ECF No. 32), and iQIYI's Sur-Reply (ECF No. 34). After having reviewed the parties' briefs, case file, and applicable law, the Court has determined that Defendant iTalk Global's Motion to Dismiss should be DENIED for the following reasons.
This case concerns the alleged infringement of U.S. copyrights owned by several Chinese companies by a Texas corporation, iTalk Global. Because of the fact-intensive nature of forum non conveniens motions, the Court must develop an extensive factual background.
Plaintiffs Beijing iQIYI Science & Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing QIYI Century Science & Technology Co., Ltd. are Chinese companies with their principal place of business in Beijing, China. iQIYI is "an innovative market-leading online entertainment service platform that provides video streaming services to viewers all over the world. Pl.'s Compl., ECF No. 1 at ¶ 1.
On the other hand, Defendant iTalk Global, d/b/a iTalkBB, is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Austin, Texas and McLean, Virginia. Id. at ¶ 2. Defendant iTalk Global is primarily engaged in the business of providing Voice-over-Internet Protocol ("VoIP") services for native Chinese and Korean speakers in the U.S. and elsewhere. Def.'s Mot. at 4. Additionally, iTalk Global acts as the sales and billing agent for iTalkTV HK, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Chinese company Beijing Capital Online Network Technology Co. Id. iTalkTV HK owns and operates the iTalkBB Chinese TV platform, a primarily Chinese language Internet Protocol Television ("IPTV") service delivered to consumes in the U.S., Canada, and Australia via a set-top box. Id. at 5. As a sales agent for iTalkTV HK, iTalk Global sells subscriptions to the iTalkBB Chinese TV platform, which is accomplished by bundling the TV platform with subscriptions to iTalk Global's VoIP service. Id. The TV shows that encompass the subscriptions to the iTalkBB Chinese TV platform are the basis for Plaintiff iQIYI's alleged copyright infringement and other claims.
Plaintiff iQIYI is the self-proclaimed "go-to internet video streaming platform in China for premium content providers." Pl.'s Compl. at 5. Plaintiff iQIYI broadcasts its programs to viewers worldwide—including to viewers in the United States—over the Internet, through tablet applications and mobile applications. Id. Importantly, iQIYI has the sole and exclusive right in the United States to import, reproduce, distribute, publicly perform, broadcast, and enforce rights of certain Chinese language programs over the Internet, including over IPTV (collectively, the "iQIYI Exclusive Shows"). Id. The iQIYI Exclusive shows contain copyrightable subject matter under U.S. law and consist of approximately thirteen TV shows. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant iTalk Global (and other affiliated entities) imported "into the United States, reproduced, distributed, and publicly performed, broadcasted, and otherwise exploited the iQIYI Exclusive Shows via iTalkBB's IPTV platform without authorization of Plaintiffs." Id. at 7.
As previously mentioned, Defendant iTalk Global sells subscriptions to the iTalkBB Chinese TV platform, which is accomplished by bundling the TV platform with subscriptions to iTalk Global's VoIP service. iTalk Global's IPTV service is made available to subscribers through the purchase of an IPTV set-top box that sits on top of the viewer's television. Compl. at 9. To stream the service, a subscriber is required to pay a monthly or annual subscription fee before the subscriber can view iTalk Global's IPTV contents. Id. iQIYI alleges that its' Exclusive Shows are shown through this set-top box and the iTalkBB IPTV platform. Thus, the streaming of iQIYI's Exclusive Shows form the basis of Plaintiff iQIYI's various claims for relief, which include: direct copyright infringement, inducement of copyright infringement and contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, violation of the DMCA, false designation of origin and false advertising, and common law conspiracy. See Pl.'s Compl.
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on April 23, 2019. ECF No. 1. Defendant iTalk Global filed its answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint on June 28, 2019. ECF No. 16. On August 20, 2019, iTalk Global filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens generally arguing that China was an adequate alternative forum and a more convenient forum in which to resolve the current dispute. ECF No. 24. On September 30, 2019, iQIYI filed its Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, arguing that China is not an adequate alternative forum and it is clearly not a more convenient forum to litigate the current dispute. ECF No. 31. Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiffs' Response on October 18, 2019. ECF No. 32. Plaintiff then filed a Sur-Reply. ECF No. 34. The Court held a hearing on the motion on December 4, 2019, in which the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
"The essence of the forum non conveniens doctrine is that a court may decline jurisdiction and may actually dismiss a case, even when the case is properly before the court, if the case more conveniently could be tried in another forum." In re Volkswagon of Am., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) ("Volkswagon II"); see also Dickson Marine Inc. v. Panalpina, Inc., 179 F.3d 331, 341 (5th Cir. 1999) (). The determination of whether a case should be dismissed for forum non conveniens is "committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 237 (1981).
The defendant bears the burden of persuasion on all elements of the forum non conveniens analysis. Thus, a defendant must "establish that there is an alternate forum that is both available and adequate." Perforaciones Exploracion Y Produccion v. Maritimas Mexicanas, S.A. de C.V., 356 Fed. App'x. 675, 679 (5th Cir. 2009). If the Court finds there is not an adequate and available forum, the inquiry ends, and the court should deny the motion to dismiss. Norex Petroleum, Ltd. v. Access Indus., 416 F.3d 146, 160 (2d Cir. 2005); Perforaciones Exploracion. 356 Fed. App'x. at 679. However, if the moving party carries its burden of establishing an alternate forum that is both adequate and available, then the defendant is charged with showing that dismissal is warranted because of certain private and public interest factors weigh in favor of dismissal. McLennan v. Am. Eurocopter Corp., Inc., 245 F.3d 403, 424 (5th Cir. 2001).
According to the courts, the relevant private interest factors include: the "relative ease of access to sources of proof; [the] availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witness[es]; [the] possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive." Dickson Marine, 179 F.3d at 342 (internal quotes omitted). The relevant public interest factors include: the "administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty." Id. (internal quotes omitted).
Plaintiff iQIYI has two main arguments as to why the Court should deny Defendant iTalk Global's Motion to Dismiss. First, iQIYI argues that the Court should deny iTalk Global's Motion because it cannot show that China is an adequate alternative forum. Pl.'s Resp. at 1. Secondly, in the event the Court finds that China is an adequate alternative forum, iQIYI argues that the private and public interest factors weigh against dismissing the case. Id. Because the first argument proffered by iQIYI is potentially dispositive, the Court will first address whether China is an alternative forum.
A motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens will not be granted unless there is an alternative forum in which the action can be brought. The defendant must show that the proposed alternative forum is both (1) available and (2) adequate. Piper, 454 U.S. at 254 n.22. Although some courts conflate these two issues, availability and adequacy of the proposed alternative forum are better considered as independent issues that warrant separate consideration. Cotemar S.A. De C.V. v. Hornbeck Offshore Serv., L.L.C., 569 Fed. App'x. 187, 190 (5th Cir. 2014) (). Thus, the Court will first address whether China is both available and adequate.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial