corporation, MITSUBISHI CORP., a corpo- ) WILLIAM ESTY CO., a corporation, Defendants. 12. ༢ ས ? 13 14 135 16 Plaintiff complains and alleges as follows: JURISDICTION 1. This is an action for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of the United States (including both the tory judgment. Jurisdiction over Counts I through V is con- over Count VI is conferred by virtue of Title.28, U.S.C. § 1338(a) and 2201. Jurisdiction over Count VII is conferred by virtue of Title 15, U.S.C §§ 1121, 1125(a) and Title 28, U.S.C. § 1338(a). Jurisdiction over Count VIII is conferred by virtue of Title 15, U.S.C §§ 1121, 1126 and Title 28, U.S.C. § 1338(a) and, in the alternative, by virtue of Title 28, U.S.C § 1338(b) and by the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction, such counts being claims arising out of substantially the same facts as Count I through V. THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Universal City Studios, Inc. is now and at all times mentioned herein was a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware and qualified to do business in the State of California, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles County, California. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff has done business under its own name and under the fictitious names, among others, of Universal Television, Universal Pictures, Universal 16 and United World Films. Plaintiff is a wholly owned subsidiary of MCA Inc., a corporation. 3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore Magnavox Consumer Electronics Company ("Magnavox"), General ("Burnett"), Ted Bates & Company ("Ted Bates"), Needham, Harper & Belding, Inc. ("Foote, Cone"), William Esty Co. ("Esty"), Batten, 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore Los Angeles. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that defendant N.V. Phillips Gloeilampenfabrieken ("N.V. Phillips") is now and at all times mentioned herein was a corpora- 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that each of the defendants listed in the right hand column of the following table is a subsidiary wholly owned by the corporation listed opposite its name in the lefthand column of the table: PARENT Matsushita Electric Industrial SUBSIDIARY. Matsushita Electric of 12 14 Matsushita Electric Industrial 15 Matsushita Electric Corporation of America 16 17 18 co.. Ltd. Matsushita Electric Industrial Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (51% ownership only) 19 8 Sharp Corporation 10 11 12 Sharp Electronics Corporation 13 14 15 16 17 18 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that Phyllis Segal, Ted Siminoski, Terry Blaylock, Mark Strelecki and Mr. and Mrs. Gary Grosporean are now and at all times mentioned herein were residents and citizens of the State of California, County of Los Angeles or County of San Bernadino. 8. NOTE: Ms. Segal and Messrs. Siminoski, Blaylock, Strelecki and the Grosporeans are not defendants in this action. Plaintiff does not seek relief herein against any homeowners who have purchased videotape recorders and videocassettes and used them only in their own homes to make off-the-air recordings of televised motion pictures for private non-commercial playback in their own homes. Plaintiff contends that such recordings constitute infringements of its copyrights in such motion pictures, but plaintiff seeks relief herein with respect to such recordings only against the manufacturers, distributors, sellers and advertisers of such videotape recorders and videocassettes. |