## Facts

- Alpha, a U.S.-based producer of specialized off-the-road mining tires, created proprietary technical blueprints for tire designs and obtained U.S. copyright registrations for multiple drawings.
- A former Alpha employee allegedly misappropriated the blueprints and provided them to UAE-based intermediaries (Al Dobowi/TyreX), who transmitted them to Chinese manufacturers (Linglong).
- Linglong allegedly used the blueprints to manufacture nearly identical mining tires and sell them worldwide, including to customers who had previously bought from Alpha.
- Alpha sued in the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting copyright infringement and Virginia conversion, among other claims.
- A jury returned a verdict for Alpha and awarded approximately $26 million in damages; the district court also awarded attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505.
- Defendants appealed, challenging personal jurisdiction, copyrightability of the blueprints, recovery for foreign sales, state-law liability, damages, and attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether a Virginia federal court could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers and intermediaries based on intentional acts aimed at a U.S. business and resulting U.S. harm.
2. Whether technical tire blueprints depicting a useful article are protectable as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a).
3. Whether copyright damages may include foreign manufacture and sales when those foreign revenues are proximately caused by a domestic act of infringement.
4. Whether defendants were liable under Virginia law for conversion of the misappropriated blueprints and whether other submitted state-law theories could stand.
5. Whether the jury’s undivided damages award and the district court’s attorney’s fee award could be sustained on appeal.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendants.
- The court affirmed copyright liability, holding the blueprints were protectable and supported a finding of copying.
- The court affirmed conversion liability under Virginia law for wrongful dominion over Alpha’s blueprints.
- The court reversed and dismissed the remaining state-law theories submitted to the jury.
- The court affirmed the approximately $26 million damages award as supported by the surviving copyright and conversion claims, including damages tied to foreign sales proximately caused by domestic infringement.
- The court vacated the attorney’s fee award and remanded for reconsideration.

## Legal Principles

- Specific personal jurisdiction may exist over foreign defendants whose intentional conduct is expressly aimed at a U.S. plaintiff and foreseeably causes harm in the forum, when the claims arise from those contacts and jurisdiction is reasonable.
- Technical drawings can qualify as protectable “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” even when they depict a utilitarian product, so long as they embody original expressive elements in the depiction.
- Copyright in a drawing protects against copying of the expressive work, not the manufacture of the useful article depicted.
- Although U.S. copyright law is generally territorial, damages may include foreign sales when those sales are directly attributable to, and proximately caused by, a predicate act of infringement occurring in the United States.
- Under Virginia law, conversion covers unauthorized exercise of dominion over another’s property interests in the misappropriated blueprints, supporting liability where defendants acquired and used them without authorization.
- A discretionary attorney’s fee award under 17 U.S.C. § 505 must be reassessed when appellate rulings materially alter the degree of success and related considerations.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that foreign entities could be sued in Virginia for a scheme aimed at stealing and exploiting a U.S. company’s copyrighted tire blueprints, affirmed liability for copyright infringement and conversion, permitted damages tied to foreign sales causally linked to domestic infringement, dismissed other state-law theories, and vacated the attorney’s fee award for reconsideration on remand.


Tire Eng’g & Distrib., LLC v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co., 682 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2012)