TechLaw

When spoon bender and copyright maximalist Uri Geller recently succeeded, on lack-of-jurisdiction grounds, in having California litigation against him for sending a false DMCA take-down notice to YouTube dismissed, one of the reasons cited by the court was the fact that the plaintiff's claim could be litigated in Pennsylvania where a related action was pending.

Several days after the California court issued its ruling, however, Geller moved to dismiss the Pennsylvania case. Magicians call this "mis-direction," the trick of getting the audience to look in the wrong place at the right time. Scoff if you like about Geller's alleged ability to bend spoons with his mind. He is very good at misdirection.

In Sapient v. Geller, No. 07-2478 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2008), Judge Vaughn R. Walker sidestepped the knotty question of whether Geller's act of sending a DMCA take-down notice conferred jurisdiction over him where the notice was received. The court decided instead to simply dismiss the case in favor of the Pennsylvania action, where Geller's company, Explorologist Ltd., had filed a copyright infringement claim against Sapient. Judge Walker wrote:

Sapient will be able to raise his Section 512(f) claim against [Geller's company] Explorologist as a counterclaim in the Pennsylvania action. ... And although Geller is not a party to that action, Sapient will be able to bring his claims against Geller using either a regular jurisdiction analysis or the federal long-arm statute.

Needless to say, Sapient is not happy about Geller's trickery. In his answer, filed today, Sapient argued that Geller's motion to dismiss would deprive him of a forum to litigate his false DMCA take-down notice claim:

Explorologist indicated to Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California that Sapient would not be harmed by dismissal of his claims there because this Court offered an alternative forum. Yet, when advised that Sapient intended to follow Chief Judge Walker's suggestion and amend his answer to join the claims to this action, Explorologist refused to stipulate to that amendment. Then, just hours after opening discussions regarding a stipulated dismissal that would provide for Sapient's claims, Explorologist ran to this Court seeking permission to dismiss. It then insisted, incorrectly, that Sapient should no longer be permitted to amend.

Explorologist is also under pressure to produce Geller for a deposition in the Pennsylvania action which, by all indications, it does not want to do. On the merits, Explorologist's copyright claim looks like an uphill battle. He is attempting to invoke British, not U.S., copyright law regarding three seconds of copyrighted video contained in a larger video production that sought to debunk Geller's claim to psychic abilities. A mind-bending feat, if he can pull it off.

The Pennsylvania court has ordered all parties to appear in person in Philadephia on March 18 to sort the matter out.