## Facts

- London Film Productions Limited (“London”) was a British corporation that produced feature motion pictures in Great Britain and distributed them worldwide.
- Intercontinental Communications, Inc. (“ICI”) was a New York corporation that licensed motion pictures it believed to be in the public domain.
- London alleged that ICI, without London’s authorization, licensed certain London motion pictures for television distribution and exhibition in Chile and other countries, including Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica, and Panama.
- London’s allegations were based in substantial part on license agreements between ICI and Dilatsa S.A., described as a buying agent for Chilean television stations, which purported to grant rights to distribute and exhibit certain London films on Chilean television.
- London alleged the motion pictures were protected by copyright in Great Britain and also in Chile and most other countries through the Berne Convention (and were not protected in the United States).
- London sued ICI in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and invoked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).
- ICI did not contest personal jurisdiction but moved to dismiss, arguing the court should decline to hear the case because the asserted wrongdoing involved only foreign exhibitions and did not violate U.S. copyright law.
- ICI also argued that the case would require interpretation of foreign copyright law and treaty-related rights, and that dismissal was appropriate on abstention or forum non conveniens-type grounds.

## Issues

1. May a federal court sitting in diversity adjudicate a claim for infringement of foreign copyrights based on allegedly infringing acts occurring outside the United States, even when no violation of U.S. copyright law is alleged?
2. Should the court dismiss or decline to exercise jurisdiction on abstention or forum non conveniens grounds because the case involves foreign copyright law and treaty-related questions and the alleged infringement occurred abroad?

## Decision

- The court denied ICI’s motion to dismiss.
- The court declined to abstain and retained jurisdiction over London’s claims under diversity jurisdiction.
- The court concluded that claims for infringement of foreign copyrights can be heard as transitory causes of action when the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.
- The court further concluded that the need to apply foreign law and the foreign location of the alleged infringement, standing alone, did not justify dismissal, especially where no clearly adequate alternative forum was shown.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court may adjudicate transitory civil claims under diversity jurisdiction, including claims arising under foreign law, when it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
- The fact that the alleged wrongful acts occurred outside the United States and do not violate U.S. copyright law does not, by itself, bar a U.S. court from hearing a foreign copyright claim pleaded under diversity jurisdiction.
- Federal courts are capable of determining and applying foreign law; the presence of foreign-law questions is not, by itself, a sufficient ground for dismissal.
- Forum non conveniens dismissal generally requires a showing of an available, adequate alternative forum and a strong balance of private and public factors favoring that forum; absent such a showing, a plaintiff’s forum choice is normally respected.
- The United States has a legitimate interest in providing a forum to resolve disputes involving alleged misconduct by a domestic corporation, even when the substantive rights asserted arise under foreign law.

## Conclusion

London Film Productions Limited v. Intercontinental Communications, Inc. holds that the Southern District of New York could hear, under diversity jurisdiction, claims alleging infringement of foreign copyrights based on foreign exhibitions, and that dismissal was not warranted merely because the dispute required application of foreign copyright law and did not allege a violation of U.S. copyright law, particularly where no adequate alternative forum was identified.


London Film Productions Limited v. Intercontinental Communications, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 47 (1984)