Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

This case revolves around a copyright dispute between Whyte Monkee Productions, LLC and Timothy Sepi (Plaintiffs) and Netflix, Inc. and Royal Goode Productions, LLC (Defendants). Plaintiffs sued Defendants for copyright infringement, alleging that Defendants had used clips from eight videos filmed by Mr. Sepi without permission in the documentary series "Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness". The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that seven of the videos were works made for hire and thus Mr. Sepi did not own the copyrights. The court also found that the use of the eighth video constituted fair use and did not infringe on Mr. Sepi’s copyright.On appeal, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Plaintiffs waived their argument regarding the first seven videos as they presented a new theory not raised in the lower court. Accordingly, the appellate court upheld the district court's judgment regarding these videos. However, regarding the eighth video, the appellate court ruled that the district court erred in determining that Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their fair use defense. The court concluded that the first factor of the fair use analysis favored the Plaintiffs instead of the Defendants, and that the Defendants failed to provide any evidence demonstrating the absence of a market impact, which is necessary to apply the fourth fair use factor. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment as to the first seven videos, reversed the judgment as to the eighth video, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Whyte Monkee Productions v. Netflix" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard the appeal of Inline Plastics Corp. against Lacerta Group, LLC. Inline Plastics alleged that Lacerta infringed on several of its patents concerning tamper-resistant plastic containers and methods of making them. After a district court ruling in favor of Lacerta, Inline appealed on the grounds that the court erred in its judgment of invalidity and infringement. Lacerta cross-appealed, challenging the denial of attorney fees and the dismissal of certain patent claims Inline dropped near the end of trial.The Court of Appeals decided to affirm the district court's denial of Inline's motion for judgment as a matter of law of validity, but vacated the court's judgment of invalidity and remanded for a new trial on this issue. The court affirmed the district court's finding of non-infringement of various claims by Lacerta, but vacated the without-prejudice dismissal of Inline’s late-withdrawn claims. The court also vacated the district court's denial of Lacerta’s motion for attorney fees under § 285. Each party will bear their own costs. View "Inline Plastics Corp. v. Lacerta Group, LLC" on Justia Law

The case in question is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Abbott Laboratories, Abbvie Inc., Abbvie Products LLC, Unimed Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Besins Healthcare, Inc. These petitioners were involved in a patent and antitrust lawsuit concerning the drug AndroGel 1%. They sought a writ of mandamus after a district judge ruled that the application of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege justified an order compelling the production of certain documents. The Petitioners claimed those documents were privileged.The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied their petition. The court reasoned that the petitioners failed to meet the high standard for granting a petition for writ of mandamus. Specifically, they failed to show a clear and indisputable abuse of discretion or error of law, a lack of an alternate avenue for adequate relief, and a likelihood of irreparable injury.The court also found that the district court did not err in its interpretation of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege as it applies to sham litigation. The court held that sham litigation, which involves a client’s intentional “misuse” of the legal process for an “improper purpose,” can trigger the crime-fraud exception. The court also rejected the argument that a "reliance" requirement must be applied in this context. View "In re: Abbott Laboratories" on Justia Law

The case involves Applied Medical Distribution Corporation (Applied) suing its former employee, Stephen Jarrells, for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of a contract governing Applied’s proprietary information, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted Applied’s posttrial motion for a permanent injunction and awarded Applied partial attorney fees, costs, and expenses.On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The court concluded that Applied was the prevailing party on the misappropriation cause of action and was entitled to a permanent injunction to recover its trade secrets and prevent further misappropriation. The court also found that Applied was entitled to an award of the reasonable attorney fees, costs, and expenses it incurred to obtain injunctive relief.However, the court disagreed with the trial court's decision to mechanically award only 25 percent of the incurred attorney fees and costs because Applied prevailed on only one of four claims it asserted. The court found that the trial court erred in how it determined the amount awarded by failing to address the extent to which the facts underlying the other claims were inextricably intertwined with or dependent upon the allegations that formed the basis of the one claim on which Applied prevailed. The court also found that the trial court erred in excluding certain expert witness fees from the damages calculation presented to the jury.Finally, the court concluded that the trial court erred by granting a nonsuit on whether Jarrells’s misappropriation was willful and malicious, and remanded for a jury trial on this issue. If the jury finds the misappropriation was willful and malicious, the court shall decide whether attorney fees and costs should be awarded to Applied and, if so, in what amount. View "Applied Medical Distribution Corp. v. Jarrells" on Justia Law

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Premier Dealer Services, a developer and administrator of automobile dealers’ aftermarket products, sued Allegiance Administrators for infringing its copyright. The issue stemmed from Premier's creation of a Lifetime Powertrain Loyalty Program, which included a loyalty certificate that set out the program's terms and conditions. Premier had registered this certificate for copyright protection. When Allegiance started working with a former Premier client, it used Premier’s Lifetime Powertrain Loyalty Program certificates in its own plan, with minor modifications in the contact information.In the lawsuit, the district court ruled that Allegiance had infringed Premier’s copyright, ordered Allegiance to give up any profits from using the certificates, and awarded Premier attorney’s fees. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court.The appellate court held that Premier's certificate was "original" and thus protected by copyright. The court clarified that originality in copyright law has a low threshold, requiring only that the author independently created a work with some minimal degree of creativity. The court rejected Allegiance's argument that the certificates were scenes a faire—stock or standard phrases that necessarily follow from a common theme or setting, which are not protectable by copyright. The court found that Allegiance had not provided sufficient evidence that industry standards or other external constraints dictated the content of the certificates.Regarding the disgorgement of profits, the court agreed with the lower court's calculations. It noted that Premier had successfully shown a reasonable relationship between Allegiance’s infringement and its gross revenues. The burden then shifted to Allegiance to demonstrate which part of its gross revenues did not result from the infringement, but Allegiance failed to fulfill this burden.Finally, the court upheld the award of attorney’s fees to Premier, finding that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in characterizing Allegiance's arguments as unreasonable and contrary to settled law. View "Premier Dealer Services, Inc. v. Allegiance Administrators, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, Sony Music Entertainment and numerous other record companies and music publishers sued Cox Communications, alleging that Cox's customers used its internet service to infringe their copyrights. The plaintiffs argued that Cox should be held accountable for its customers' copyright infringement. A jury found Cox liable for both willful contributory and vicarious infringement of over 10,000 copyrighted works owned by the plaintiffs and awarded $1 billion in statutory damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Cox was not vicariously liable for its customers' copyright infringement because Cox did not profit from its subscribers’ acts of infringement, a legal prerequisite for vicarious liability. However, the court affirmed the jury’s finding of willful contributory infringement because Cox knew of the infringing activity and materially contributed to it.The court vacated the $1 billion damages award and remanded the case for a new trial on damages, holding that the jury’s finding of vicarious liability could have influenced its assessment of statutory damages. The court did not vacate the contributory infringement verdict. View "Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications, Incorporated" on Justia Law

In this case, professional concert photographer Larry Philpot brought a copyright-infringement claim against news website Independent Journal Review (IJR) after IJR used his photograph of musician Ted Nugent in an online article. IJR sought summary judgment, arguing that its use of the photo constituted fair use under the Copyright Act and alternatively arguing that Philpot's copyright registration was invalid. Philpot also sought summary judgment, contending that his registration was valid and that IJR's use was not fair use. The district court granted summary judgment to IJR on fair use grounds and denied Philpot's motion.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the decision. The court held that IJR's use of the photograph did not constitute fair use because it was non-transformative and commercial, and it adversely affected the potential market for the photograph. It also found that Philpot's copyright registration was valid because the photograph was not published before Philpot registered it as an unpublished work. The court concluded that IJR was not entitled to summary judgment on its fair use defense and that Philpot was entitled to summary judgment on the validity of the copyright registration. View "Philpot v. Independent Journal Review" on Justia Law

This case arises from a trademark infringement dispute under the Lanham Act between Rolex Watch USA, Incorporated (Rolex) and Beckertime, L.L.C.; Matthew Becker (Beckertime). Rolex is a luxury watch seller with legally protectable interest in numerous trademarks. Beckertime sells primarily decades-old preowned watches containing Rolex branded parts, including watches identified as “Genuine Rolex,” but contain both Rolex and non-Rolex parts. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part, modified in part, and remanded in part the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.The district court found that Beckertime infringed Rolex’s trademark but refused to disgorge Beckertime of its profits, applying the laches defense. Rolex appealed, seeking a modification to the injunction, treble profits, and attorneys’ fees, while Beckertime sought the application of an alternative test to determine infringement.The Appellate Court upheld the district court's ruling that Beckertime infringed Rolex’s trademark, finding no clear error in the determination. The court affirmed the district court's decision to apply the laches defense, preventing the disgorgement of Beckertime's profits. The court found that Rolex had failed to offer a valid justification for its delay in filing suit and that Beckertime was prejudiced by this delay.Regarding remedies, the Appellate Court found that Rolex was not entitled to treble profits or attorneys’ fees. The court pointed out that Rolex had not moved for attorneys’ fees within the required time period under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2), thereby waiving its right to such fees. Furthermore, the district court found no evidence of deliberate counterfeiting by Beckertime to warrant the imposition of treble profits.The court also addressed the scope of the injunction issued by the district court. It modified the injunction to prohibit the sale of Rolex watches with non-genuine bezels, but upheld the exclusion of all non-genuine dials from the injunction. The court also agreed with Rolex that the typographical errors in one section of the injunction rendered it vague and unqualified, and remanded the case to the district court for clarification. View "Rolex Watch v. Beckertime" on Justia Law

In a dispute between Ultra Bond, Inc., and its owner, Richard Campfield (collectively "Ultra Bond"), and Safelite Group, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively "Safelite"), both parties operate in the vehicle glass repair and replacement industry. Ultra Bond alleges that Safelite violated the Lanham Act by falsely advertising that windshield cracks longer than six inches could not be safely repaired and instead required replacement of the entire windshield. Safelite counterclaims that Ultra Bond stole trade secrets from Safelite in violation of state and federal law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the district court was incorrect to grant summary judgment to Safelite on Ultra Bond’s Lanham Act claim. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Safelite's allegedly false statements may have caused economic injury to Ultra Bond, and this issue should go to a jury.The court also affirmed the district court's decision that Safelite's claims for conversion, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with contract were preempted by the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA). However, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ultra Bond on Safelite’s claim under OUTSA, ruling that Safelite's claim was not time-barred and should be evaluated further in the lower court.Finally, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ultra Bond on Safelite's unfair competition claim, finding that Safelite hadn't provided enough evidence to support its claim that Ultra Bond's statements were false or that they had led to a diversion of customers from Safelite to Ultra Bond. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Campfield v. Safelite Group, Inc." on Justia Law

In a trademark dispute between two companies that used the word "Punchbowl" in their marks, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgement in favor of AJ Press, LLC. The court held that AJ Press, LLC's use of the Punchbowl mark was not outside the scope of the Lanham Act under the "Rogers test". The Rogers test, which governs disputes over trademarks that are used in expressive works protected by the First Amendment, does not apply when the accused infringer uses a trademark to designate the source of its own goods. The court found that AJ Press, LLC was using the Punchbowl mark to identify and distinguish its news products. The court reversed the district court's judgement and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to proceed to a likelihood-of-confusion analysis under the Lanham Act. View "Punchbowl, Inc. v. AJ Press, LLC" on Justia Law