## Facts

- TS Production LLC claimed it was assigned copyright in the film *The Secret* and an associated book, arising from an Australian production connected to Rhonda Byrne.
- Drew Pictures Pty Ltd (director Drew Heriot’s company) and Heriot asserted they were entitled to a share of copyright based on Heriot’s role as director and contributor to the film’s creation.
- Substantial production activities (including filming and post-production) occurred in Australia while Heriot was resident there.
- TS Production sued in the Federal Court of Australia seeking declarations of ownership under Australian copyright law and an injunction preventing the respondents from asserting Australian copyright claims.
- The respondents commenced proceedings in the United States (Northern District of Illinois) seeking declarations of co-ownership under U.S. copyright law and related relief (including an accounting).
- The respondents sought a stay of the Australian case on forum non conveniens grounds; TS Production also sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain continuation of the U.S. case.

## Issues

1. Whether the Australian proceeding should be stayed because Australia was a clearly inappropriate forum in light of parallel U.S. litigation.
2. Whether the court should grant an anti-suit injunction restraining the respondents from continuing the U.S. proceeding.
3. How the territorial nature of copyright and choice-of-law considerations affected the forum analysis and the claimed need for injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Full Court set aside the stay of the Australian proceedings, holding Australia was not a clearly inappropriate forum for claims confined to Australian copyright.
- The Full Court refused to grant an anti-suit injunction restraining the U.S. proceedings.
- The Court allowed both proceedings to continue in parallel, with each court addressing rights under its own copyright regime.

## Legal Principles

- Under Australian forum non conveniens doctrine, a stay is granted only if the local court is a “clearly inappropriate forum,” commonly framed in terms of “vexation or oppression” to the defendant.
- Copyright is territorial; courts generally adjudicate rights arising under their own copyright statutes, limiting any single forum’s ability to resolve worldwide copyright ownership and infringement questions.
- Parallel proceedings and overlapping factual issues, even with inefficiency and added cost, do not by themselves establish that a forum is clearly inappropriate or justify restraining foreign litigation.
- An anti-suit injunction requires more than duplication or risk of inconsistent factual findings; the moving party must show the foreign proceeding is vexatious or oppressive in a way that interferes with, or frustrates, the domestic court’s processes, and comity weighs against restraining a foreign court absent that showing.

## Conclusion

The Full Court held that Australian copyright ownership claims tied to Australian production activities could proceed in Australia despite related U.S. litigation, but declined to restrain the U.S. case because mere duplication and expense did not amount to vexation or oppression or improper interference with the Australian court’s process.


TS Production LLC v. Drew Pictures Pty Ltd, 252 A.L.R. 1 (FCAFC 2008)