commission of a tortious act within this state[.] Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 110, para. 2-209(a). A cause of action for copyright infringement sounds in tort. Leo Feist, Inc. v. Young, 138 F.2d 972, 975 (7th Cir.1943); Burwood Products Company v. Marsel Mirror and Glass Products, Inc., 468 F.Supp. 1215, 1218 (N.D.Ill.1979); see also Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 925 F.2d 1010, 1013 (7th Cir.1991) (dictum). With respect to the issue of whether an allegedly tortious act was committed “within [Illinois]”, another court in this district has observed that “[d]amage to intellectual property rights ... by definition takes place where the [property] owner suffers the damage.” Acrison, Inc. v. Control and Metering, Ltd., 730 F.Supp. 1445, 1448 (N.D.Ill.1990) (Shadur, J.) (emphasis in original) (<HOLDING>). This court agrees with the Acrison court’s
holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law holding that illinois wage law did not apply to nonresident employee who worked outside the state even though eim ployers primary place of business was in illinois holding that foreign corporation was not doing business in illinois and thus personal jurisdiction was lacking even though corporation had some contact with the state and maintained a registered agent here because tjhere is nothing in the illinois code of civil procedure that supports asserting in personam jurisdiction over a corporate defendant simply because the plaintiff served summons upon the defendants illinois registered agent holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction pursuant to  2209a2 over a defendant who was not transacting  business in illinois within the meaning of  2209al because the plaintiff was a nonillinois corporation and the tort thus occurred outside of illinois holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction