Creative Technology, Ltd., a Singapore Corporation v. Aztech System Pte, Ltd, a Singapore Corporation Aztech Labs, Inc., a California Corporation

61 F.3d 696 64 USLW 2083 , 1995 Copr.L.Dec. P 27,415 , 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1590 , 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5751 , 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9814 CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY, LTD., a Singapore corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AZTECH SYSTEM PTE, LTD, a Singapore corporation; Aztech Labs, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-16997. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 10, 1995. Decided July 24, 1995. Robert A. Van Nest, Keker, Brockett & Van Nest, San Francisco, CA, and Joel Linzer, Crosby, Heafey, Roach, & May, Oakland, CA, for plaintiff-appellant. William S. Coats, Carolyn F. Bostick, and Sarah W. Anderson, Brown & Bain, Palo Alto, CA, for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before: FLOYD R. GIBSON, * HUG, and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge FLOYD R. GIBSON; Dissent by Judge FERGUSON. FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge. 1 Creative Technology appeals the district court's forum non conveniens dismissal of its copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (1988), and we affirm. I.…

Opinion by Judge FLOYD R. GIBSON; Dissent by Judge FERGUSON.

Creative Technology appeals the district court’s forum non conveniens dismissal of its copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988), and we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Appellant Creative Technology, Ltd. (Creative) and Appellee Aztech Systems Pte. Ltd. (Aztech) are competing Singapore corporations in the business of developing, man *699 ufacturing, and distributing sound cards. 1 Both Aztech’s and Creative’s principal place of business is Singapore. All the sound cards are designed, developed, and manufactured in Singapore. Creative markets its sound cards in the United States under the brand name “Sound Blaster” through Creative Labs, Inc., a California corporation and wholly owned subsidiary. Aztech, in turn, markets its sound cards in the United States under the brand name “Sound Galaxy” through Appellee Aztech Labs, Inc. (Aztech Labs), another California corporation and wholly owned subsidiary.

The present action arises from a protracted copyright dispute between Creative and Aztech. The first round of copyright litigation erupted in November of 1992 when…

dissenting:

Because the district court failed to properly exercise its discretion by dismissing for forum non conveniens a claim brought pursuant to United States copyright law, I dissent. A district court may dismiss an action on grounds of forum non conveniens upon a showing that 1) an adequate alternative forum exists, and 2) the balance of relevant public and private interest factors weighs in favor of dismissal. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 , 102 S.Ct. 252, 266 , 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981). In this case, the *705 district court erred by ignoring the unique nature and complexity of American copyright law in its analysis of both parts of the forum non conveniens test.

I must admit that I am astounded when I read that it is not convenient to try an American copyright case in an American court for copyright infringement that takes place solely in America. I am also astounded by a decision that the convenient place to hold the trial is in Singapore, particularly when the majority have not the slightest idea that a court in that nation would even recognize an American copyright.

Background

Plaintiff, Creative Technology Ltd., and Defendant, Aztech Systems Pts.…