1mage Software, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co‪.‬

1mage Software, Inc. ("1mage") appeals the district courts decision compelling arbitration, in Ohio, of a dispute arising under a software licensing agreement. Before reaching the merits of this appeal, we must address two potential problems with the district courts jurisdiction. First, we conclude the district court had subject matter jurisdiction based upon the federal question presented by 1mages claim asserted under the Copyright Act. In reaching this conclusion, we adopt the Second Circuits analysis for distinguishing between state-law claims alleging breach of a contract involving copyrighted matters and those asserting an actual controversy under the federal Copyright Act. Second, although this court has previously held, in Ansari v. Qwest Communications Corp., 414 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2005), that a district court does not have the authority under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 4, to compel arbitration in another district, this was not a jurisdictional prerequisite, but was instead a venue requirement that the parties have waived in this case. Reaching the merits, we AFFIRM the district courts decision to compel arbitration.