In WEST COAST PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action DOES 1-1,434, Defendants. No. 11-55 (JEB/JMF) the US Federal Court for the District of Columbia, where the above captioned lawsuit is being heard, has issued its opinion that the Plaintiff be required to show "personal jurisdiction" of the Court on the named 1000 John Doe Defendants.

Quote:

Plaintiff’s cause of action, tortious copyright infringement,2 is brought under a federal statute, the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act does not provide for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over alleged infringers on a nationwide or other basis. Plaintiff must therefore predicate the court’s jurisdiction over the infringers on the reach of District of Columbia law. http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/0...te%20Booty.pdf P. 3 line 1 http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/28/44261.htm

I suppose the logical conclusion that GEO-City IP will be the arbitrator of the IP's jurisdiction, identifying which of the John Does are in the Washington D.C. jurisdiction of the Court ...

Important to note: The standing of the IP as the identifier in a piracy infringement case is not disputed but the location of that IP determines the jurisdiction of the Defendant and the location of the "crime (tort act)."

Quote:

[T]hus, unless the infringer is domiciled in the District of Columbia, the question presented is where the infringement occurred and whether it occurred in the District of Columbia. ... ... As a result, the court of appeals held that, because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant’s fraud caused him injury in the District of Columbia, the court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over her as to that count. Id. at 209. ...

This ruling seems to put an end to the practice of the filing of mass lawsuits naming John Does based on their IPs.