Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Cover Corporation, a Japanese entertainment company supporting online streamers who use virtual avatars known as VTubers, alleged that it owns intellectual-property rights in the avatars and resulting work product and has registered more than 100 avatar characters with the U.S. Copyright Office. It sued pro se defendant Masaki Yamashita, a Japan-based YouTube creator, under the Copyright Act. The complaint alleged that 68 videos uploaded to his YouTube channel infringed copyrights in 20 characters.
Yamashita moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens, arguing that the parties, conduct, and most evidence were in Japan and that much of the evidence was in Japanese. Cover opposed dismissal, invoking deference to its chosen forum, questioning Japan’s adequacy, and pointing to YouTube-related evidence in the district. The court treated the motion as a non-merits request that could be resolved without first deciding subject-matter or personal jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted dismissal. It explained that a foreign plaintiff’s choice of forum receives less deference than a resident plaintiff’s choice, reducing the showing required for dismissal. Yamashita therefore had to establish an adequate alternative forum and a balance of private and public interests favoring Japan. The court found the dispute’s substance entirely outside the United States: a Japanese content creator, a Japanese company’s intellectual property, and videos directed mainly to a Japanese audience. The court called the case tailor made for forum non conveniens because no material aspect of it was bound to the United States or this judicial district. Japan was adequate because Yamashita agreed to accept process and not contest personal jurisdiction there, and Cover acknowledged meaningful copyright remedies under Japanese law. The court rejected the premise that Japan must supply every American remedy or apply all aspects of United States copyright law; a different range of remedies or governing law does not leave Cover without a remedy.
The private-interest factors favored dismissal because Yamashita’s documents and other potential infringement evidence were in Japan, while much of the YouTube material Cover identified could also be obtained through him. Cover had previously used 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in the district to obtain Google discovery for Japanese litigation, undercutting its access argument. Witnesses in Japan, including Cover employees, could not be compelled to give evidence if they declined to cooperate, and willing witnesses would require substantial travel, lodging, and translation. The public-interest factors also favored Japan: posting videos on YouTube did not create a meaningful local stake in an otherwise foreign controversy. The court concluded that imposing a translated trial about foreign parties and events on a local jury made little sense and that Yamashita had carried his burden.
Key Takeaways
- A foreign plaintiff’s selection of a United States forum receives less deference, and dismissal is proper when the balance of conveniences makes the chosen forum unnecessarily burdensome.
- An alternative forum need not provide the same remedies or apply United States law; the relevant distinction is between losing a particular federal claim and having no remedy at all.
- Evidence associated with a United States-based platform does not necessarily outweigh overseas primary evidence, unavailable compulsory process for foreign witnesses, and substantial translation and travel burdens.
- The dismissal rested on forum non conveniens rather than the merits of Cover’s infringement allegations, and the order did not condition dismissal on specified future undertakings beyond Yamashita’s stated acceptance of Japanese process and jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision shows how forum non conveniens can dispose of a federal copyright case when the operative parties, conduct, evidence, and audience are foreign, even though the videos appeared on an American platform and the complaint invoked United States law. It separates the location of platform records from the overall center of the dispute and treats prior use of cross-border discovery procedures as practically relevant.
The ruling also cautions against turning YouTube’s domestic presence into a general reason to litigate global internet disputes in the district. Its analysis is case-specific: the court emphasized the absence of a material connection to the United States apart from the Copyright Act, the Japanese-language record, and the difficulty of obtaining and presenting testimony from Japan. Because forum non conveniens is a non-merits ground, the dismissal bypasses subject-matter and personal jurisdiction questions and leaves the infringement allegations unadjudicated.