Edy Clover Prods., Inc. v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 572 F.2d 119 (3rd Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Edy Clover Prods., Inc. v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 572 F.2d 119 (3rd Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Donner v. Tams-Witmark Music Library, Inc. (paed, 1979-12-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Donner v. Tams-Witmark Music Library, Inc.
E.D. Pa. · 1979 · confidence medium
There is, therefore, no unfairness in requiring the producer to answer such a charge in the state in which it arises. 572 F.2d at 120-21.
cited Cited "see" Tolbert v. High Noon Productions LLC
N.D. Ala. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Edy Clover, 572 F.2d at 120.
cited Cited "see" Tolbert v. High Noon Productions LLC
N.D. Ala. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Edy Clover, 572 F.2d at 120.
cited Cited "see" Rappoport v. Steven Spielberg, Inc.
D.N.J. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Edy Clover Productions, Inc. v. NBC, Inc., 572 F.2d 119 , 120-21 (3d Cir.1978).
cited Cited "see" Airola v. King
D. Ariz. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Edy Clover Productions, Inc. v. NBC, Inc., 572 F.2d 119 , 120 (3d Cir. 1978); Battle Creek Equip.
discussed Cited "see" Heckel v. Beech Aircraft Corp.
W.D. Pa. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See Edy Clover Products Inc. v. NBC, 572 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1978) wherein it was held that the defendant could anticipate that its TV broadcasts would be received in New Jersey through interstate commerce and would therefore be subject to copyright infringement suits there.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Auto Channel, Inc. v. Speedvision Network, LLC
W.D. Ky. · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Payne v. Kristofferson, 631 F.Supp. 39, 43 (N.D.Ga.1985) (nonresident's licensing arrangement with national distributor of allegedly infringing song books sufficient to establish minimum contacts with forum); See also Edy Clover Productions, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 572 F.2d 119, 120-21 (3rd Cir.1978) (nonresident programmer could anticipate that allegedly infringing game show might be broadcast by distributor in forum).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network Productions, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
Additionally, the long-arm statute is not limited to an act in Florida causing injury in Florida, but includes “the situation in which a foreign tortious act causes injury within the forum.” Rebozo, 515 F.2d at 1212 ; Bangor Punta, 543 F.2d at 1109 ; see also Edy Clover Prods., Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 572 F.2d 119 (3d Cir.1978) (On an interlocutory appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, the court found no unfairness in requiring a television producer to answer a copyright infringement charge in a remote forum receiving the broadcast.)…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cable/Home Communication Corporation v. Network Productions, Inc.
11th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
Additionally, the long-arm statute is not limited to an act in Florida causing injury in Florida, but includes "the situation in which a foreign tortious act causes injury within the forum." Rebozo, 515 F.2d at 1212 ; Bangor Punta, 543 F.2d at 1109 ; see also Edy Clover Prods., Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 572 F.2d 119 (3d Cir.1978) (On an interlocutory appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, the court found no unfairness in requiring a television producer to answer a copyright infringement charge in a remote forum receiving the broadcast.); Ge…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edy Clover Productions, Inc., and Marc Goodman
v.
National Broadcasting Company, Inc., and H. G. Saperstein and Associates, and Heatter Quigley, Inc. Appeal of Heatter Quigley, Inc
77-1693.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Feb 27, 1978.
572 F.2d 119
Published

572 F.2d 119

197 U.S.P.Q. 337, 1978-81 Copr.L.Dec. 25,020

EDY CLOVER PRODUCTIONS, INC., and Marc Goodman
v.
NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., and H. G. Saperstein
and Associates, and Heatter Quigley, Inc.
Appeal of HEATTER QUIGLEY, INC.

No. 77-1693.

United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 16, 1978.
Decided Feb. 27, 1978.

Douglas C. Fairhurst, Susan M. Campbell, New York City, Goodman & Stoldt, Hackensack, N. J., Townley & Updike, New York City, for appellant, Heatter-Quigley, Inc.

Kenneth S. Javerbaum, Bloom & Javerbaum, Springfield, N. J., for appellee.

Before GIBBONS and HUNTER, Circuit Judges, and STAPLETON,[*] District Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

[*~119]1

Heatter-Quigley, Inc., a California corporation which produces television game shows in California, is one of several defendants sued in the District of New Jersey for copyright infringement and unfair competition. It appeals from an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction.[1] The plaintiffs in the action are Edy Clover Productions, Inc., a New Jersey corporation doing business in New Jersey, and its president Marc Goodman, a New Jersey resident. The complaint alleges that a game show named "The Magnificent Marble Machine," broadcast by the National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (NBC), from a New York transmitter to television receivers in New Jersey, infringes a copyrighted television script owned by the plaintiffs. The affidavits on file establish that Heatter-Quigley produced the allegedly infringing series in California and furnished it to NBC, knowing that it would be so broadcast. We affirm the order of the district court.

2

It is clear that a state has an interest in protecting its residents from interstate transmissions which infringe their copyrights. The state has, therefore, an interest in providing a forum. It is also clear that a producer of a television program, who knows that the production will be transmitted interstate, can anticipate that infringement may result at places remote from the place of production. There is, therefore, no unfairness in requiring the producer to answer such a charge in the state in which it arises. See Empire Abrasive Equipment Corp. v. H. H. Watson, Inc., 567 F.2d 554 (3d Cir. 1977).

[*~120]3

The order appealed from will be affirmed.

*

Honorable Walter K. Stapleton, United States District Judge for the District of Delaware, sitting by designation

1

The case is before us pursuant to a certificate under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)