opinion: EDY CLOVER PRODUCTIONS, INC., and Marc Goodman v. NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY, INC., and H. G. Saperstein and Associates, and Heatter Quigley, Inc. Appeal of HEATTER QUIGLEY, INC.
  No. 77-1693.
  United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
  Submitted Feb. 16, 1978.
  Decided Feb. 27, 1978.
  Douglas C. Fairhurst, Susan M. Campbell, New York City, Goodman & Stoldt, Hack-ensack, N. J., Townley & Updike, New York City, for appellant, Heatter-Quigley, Inc.
  Kenneth S. Javerbaum, Bloom & Javerb-aum, Springfield, N. J., for appellee.
  Before GIBBONS and HUNTER, Circuit Judges, and STAPLETON, District Judge.
  Honorable Walter K. Stapleton, United States District Judge for the District of Delaware, sitting by designation.
  OPINION OF THE COURT
  GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.
  Heatter-Quigley, Inc., a California corporation which produces television game shows in California, is one of several defendants sued in the District of New Jersey for copyright infringement and unfair competition. It appeals from an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction. The plaintiffs in the action are Edy Clover Productions, Inc., a New Jersey corporation doing business in New Jersey, and its president Marc Goodman, a New Jersey resident. The complaint alleges that a game show named “The Magnificent Marble Machine,” broadcast by the National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (NBC), from a New York transmitter to television receivers in New Jersey, infringes a copyrighted television script owned by the plaintiffs. The affidavits on file establish that Heatter-Quigley produced the allegedly infringing series in California and furnished it to NBC, knowing that it would be so broadcast. We affirm the order of the district court.
  It is clear that a state has an interest in protecting its residents from interstate transmissions which infringe their copyrights. The state has, therefore, an interest in providing a forum. It is also clear that a producer of a television program, who knows that the production will be transmitted interstate, can anticipate that infringement may result at places remote from the place of production. There is, therefore, no unfairness in requiring the producer to answer such a charge in the state in which it arises. See Empire Abrasive Equipment Corp. v. H. H. Watson, Inc., 567 F.2d 554 (3d Cir. 1977).
  The order appealed from will be affirmed.
  . The case is before us pursuant to a certificate under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
  If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
  Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.