Court Dismisses DISH's $25M Piracy Lawsuit Against UK Hosting Provider Innetra PC
Key Takeaways
- ▸A California federal court dismissed DISH Network's $25M copyright infringement lawsuit against UK hosting provider Innetra PC due to lack of personal jurisdiction
- ▸Judge Noël Wise found DISH failed to demonstrate Innetra had sufficient contacts with the U.S., citing the company's minimal American customer base and lack of U.S. servers
- ▸The ruling highlights jurisdictional challenges in pursuing international piracy cases, with the court noting DISH could pursue the dispute in the United Kingdom instead
Summary
A California federal court has dismissed DISH Network's $25 million copyright infringement lawsuit against UK-based hosting provider Innetra PC, ruling that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendant. Judge Noël Wise granted Innetra's motion to dismiss after applying the "purposeful direction" test, finding that DISH failed to demonstrate the hosting company had sufficient contacts with the United States or California to warrant litigation in U.S. courts.
DISH, working with the International Broadcaster Coalition Against Piracy (IBCAP), had accused Innetra of providing essential infrastructure for multiple pirate IPTV services including Lemo TV, Kemo IPTV, Honeybee, Xtremehd, and Caliptostreams. The lawsuit alleged the company ignored hundreds of DMCA takedown notices and lacked proper repeat infringer policies. However, evidence presented during jurisdictional discovery revealed Innetra had virtually no U.S. presence: no U.S. servers, and only two brief American customer relationships in 2025—one generating $682 in revenue over two months.
The court rejected DISH's argument that Innetra's peering arrangements with telecommunications companies demonstrated intent to reach U.S. users, noting that Innetra contracted with German and Dutch branches, not U.S. affiliates. The dismissal was issued without prejudice, meaning DISH could refile the case in the United Kingdom where Innetra is actually based.
- Innetra's minimal U.S. presence—only two brief customer relationships in 2025—was deemed insufficient to establish the 'purposeful direction' required under Ninth Circuit precedent
