Island Software And Computer Service, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation (2005)

Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 , 264 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[A]t the summary judgment stage, [even if one] inference . . . seems the better of the possible inferences that can be drawn, we must still draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party.”).

Island Software and Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 260 (2d Cir.2005).

In so doing, we “view the facts in the light most favorable” to the party against whom summary judgment is sought, Island Software & Computer Service, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 260 (2d Cir.2005), and we “draw all reasonable inferences in [that party’s] favor.” Id.

Knowledge that an infringer’s conduct represents infringement may be either actual or “constructive.” Isl and Software & Computer Serv. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 264 (2d Cir.2005) (noting that a plaintiff can prove willfulness “by proffering circumstantial evidence that gives rise to an inference of wblful conduct”).

See Nationwide Van Lines, 853 F. App’x at 606; Brooks-Ngwenya, 564 F.3d at 808 ; Beckman, 752 F. Supp. 3d at 1375; Sternbaum, 2022 WL 16745340 , at *2, n.1; Island Software, 413 F.3d at 261.

However, the Copyright Act also allows plaintiffs to sue for “statutory damages” in lieu of actual damages and profits once an act of infringement has been shown. 17 U.S.C. § 504(a)(2), (c); Island Software and Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 262 (2d Cir. 2005).

The Court may take judicial notice of a fact that can be “readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Island Software & Computer Serv., Inc., 413 F.3d at 261.

Accordingly, courts have found willfulness where a defendant engaged in “a pattern of conduct so unreasonable as to constitute reckless disregard,” id. at 264, had “constructive knowledge” of the infringement, Fitzgerald Pub.

Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 262 (2d Cir.2005). 1 “If the plaintiff so elects, the district court will grant anywhere between $750 and $30,000 for each copyright infringed.” Id. at 262-63 .

Island Software and Computer Service, Inc., 413 F.3d 257, 262-63 (2d Cir.2005) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 504 (c)).

The same potential outcome exists for the masthead, which, although quite basic — consisting of the Ajit logo, two advertising boxes, and a grey line — could conceivably be found copyrightable. 4) Unauthorized Copying of Protected Work In addition to demonstrating that it has ownership of a valid copyright, plaintiff must also establish that defendants infringed on this copyright “by violating one of the exclusive rights that 17 U.S.C. § 106 bestows upon the copyright holder…

“Under the Copyright Act, there is no need for an infringer to act willfully for it to be sanctioned.” Island Software Computer v. Microsoft, 413 F.3d at 265.

“Under the Copyright Act, there is no need for an infringer to act willfully for it to be sanctioned.” Island Software Computer v. Microsoft, 413 F.3d at 265.

Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 , 261 (2d Cir. 2005) (“The district court was entitled to take judicial notice of [the plaintiff’s] federal copyright registrations, as published in the Copyright Office’s registry.”); Peretti Acuti v. Authentic Brands Grp.

Grp., Inc., 547 F.3d 406, 424 (2d Cir.2008) (citing Island Software & Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d at 261).

Island Software, 413 F.3d at 260 (finding that unauthorized duplication of software had occurred based on unrebutted testimony of two witnesses).

While it is, like in Island Software, “without doubt” that a jury could find that the evidence relied on by plaintiffs demonstrates, at least, defendant’s willful blindness or reckless disregard, of the possibility that its conduct constituted infringement, it is “not beyond peradventure that a reasonable jury could conclude otherwise.” 413 F.3d at 264 (“at the summary judgment stage, although an inference of constructive knowledge or reckless conduct seems the better of the…

Accordingly, we uphold the award of summary judgment in favor of defendants.”); Island Software and Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 261 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Broad, conclusory attacks on the credibility of a witness will not, by themselves, present questions of material fact.”); McCullough v. Wyandanch Union Free Sch.

Cf. Island Software and Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 , 261 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Broad, conclusory attacks on the credibility of a witness will not, by themselves, present questions of material fact.”); McCullough v. Wyandanch Union Free Sch.

A plaintiff can show that the defendant had actual knowledge – i.e., that “the defendant was actually aware of the infringing activity.” Island Software, 413 F.3d at 263 (cleaned up).

Secondly, “[b]road, conclusory attacks on the credibility of a witness will not, by themselves, present questions of material fact.” Island Software & Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 , 261 (2d Cir. 2005). “[W]ithout affirmative evidence warranting an adverse inference, [the Court will not] disregard [] uncontroverted assertions.” Id. at 262.

Lu (married): $14,000,000 for Dior; $80,000,000 for Louis Vuitton e Xingyun Hu: $20,000,000 for Dior; $76,000,000 for Louis Vuitton e Yu Hu QU: $19,000,000 for Dior; $68,000,000 for Louis Vuitton Cai Qin Xie: $29,000,000 for Dior; $84,000,000 for Louis Vuitton *e Xiaowei Gao: $5,000,000 for Dior; $5,000,000 for Louis Vuitton The "district judge has wide discretion in setting the statutory damage award." See Island Software and Computer Serv., Inc. v, Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3…

Cal. Nov. 24, 2021), aff'd, No. 22-55045, 2023 WL 3600032 (9th Cir. May 23, 2023); see also Island Software & Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 , 261 (2d Cir. 2005) (“[U]nder Rule 201(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, a court may take judicial notice of facts that are ‘capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.””). * There are other defendants in this action besides the four moving d…

Serv. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 , 261 (2d Cir. 2005) (“The district court was entitled to take judicial notice of [defendant]’s federal copyright registrations, as published in the Copyright Office’s registry”).

Absent evidence establishing actual knowledge of infringement, a plaintiff can still demonstrate willfulness by “proffering circumstantial evidence that gives rise to an inference of willful conduct.” Island Software, 413 F.3d at 264; accord L.A.

Island Software and Computer Service, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 261 (2d Cir. 2005) (district courts are entitled to take judicial notice of federal copyright registrations).

“To prove ‘willfulness’ under the Copyright Act, the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant was actually aware of the infringing activity, or (2) that the defendant’s actions were the result of ‘reckless disregard’ for, or ‘willfull blindness’ to, the copyright holder’s rights.” Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc., 658 F.3d 936, 944 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Island Software & Computer Service, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 263 (2d Cir. 2005)).

“To prove ‘willfulness’ under the Copyright Act, the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant was actually aware of the infringing activity, or (2) that the defendant’s actions were the result of ‘reckless disregard’ for, or ‘willful blindness’ to, the copyright holder's rights.” Island Software, 413 F.3d at 263.

Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 , 264 (2d Cir. 2005) (“a plaintiff can still prove willfulness by proffering circumstantial evidence that gives rise to an inference of willful conduct”)).

Island Software & Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 , 264 (2d Cir. 2005) (“a plaintiff can still prove willfulness by proffering circumstantial evidence that gives rise to an inference of willful conduct”).

See Desia v. GE Life & Annuity Assurance Co. , 350 F. App'x 542 , 545 (2d Cir. 2009) ("This general attack on Stewart's competence, even if credited, provides no evidence .... [a]ccordingly, we uphold the award of summary judgment in favor of defendants."); Island Software and Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. , 413 F.3d 257 , 261 (2d Cir. 2005) ("Broad, conclusory attacks on the credibility of a witness will not, by themselves, present questions of material fact."); M…

"To prove willfulness under the Copyright Act, the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant was actually aware of the infringing activity, or (2) that the defendant's actions were the result of reckless disregard for, or willful blindness to, the copyright holder's rights." Id. at 263 (citation omitted).

Island Software and Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 262-63 (2d Cir.2005) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 504 (c)(1)); see D.C.

Notably, “[b]road, conclusory attacks on the credibility of a witness will not, by themselves, present questions of material fact,” and a party’s “uncontrovert-ed assertions” will not be disregarded “without affirmative evidence warranting an adverse inference.” Island Software and Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 261-62 (2d Cir.2005).

Island Software and Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 261 (2d Cir.2005) (citation omitted) (holding that party who bears the burden of proof at trial cannot dispute the evidence offered by opposing party on summary judgment with a general attack on witnesses’ honesty). .

Island Software and Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 261 (2d Cir.2005) (citation omitted) (holding that party who bears the burden of proof at trial cannot dispute the evidence offered by opposing party on summary judgment with a general attack on witnesses' honesty). .

Dec. 18, 2008) (taking judicial notice of trademark application publicly available on USPTO website) (citing Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 954 (Fed.Cir.1993)); cf. Island Software and Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 261 (2d Cir.2005) (taking judicial notice of federal copyright registrations, as published in the Copyright Office’s registry); Duluth News-Tribune v. Mesabi Publ’g Co., 84 F.3d 1093 , 1096 n. 2 (8th Cir.1996) (taking judi…

Merits of Plaintiffs’ Copyright Infringement Claims In order to establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show (1) that it “had a valid copyright in the work allegedly infringed,” and (2) that “the defendant infringed the plaintiffs copyright by violating one of the exclusive rights that 17 U.S.C. § 106 bestows upon the copyright holder.” Island Software and Computer Service, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 260 (2d Cir.2005) (citation and quotation marks omit…

“To prove ‘willfulness’ under the Copyright Act, the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant was actually aware of the infringing activity, or (2) that the defendant’s actions were the result of ‘reckless disregard’ for, or ‘willful blindness’ to, the copyright holder’s rights.” Island Software and Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 263 (2d Cir.2005).

Island Software *683 & Computer Service, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 264 (2nd Cir.2005).

DISCUSSION A. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court may not grant summary judgment “unless there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Island Software and Computer Service, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 260 (2d Cir.2005) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)).

LEGAL STANDARD The Court may not grant summary judgment “unless there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Island Software and Computer Service, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 260 (2d Cir.2005) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)).

To establish willfulness under the Act, “the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant was actually aware of the infringing activity, or (2) that the defendant’s actions were the result of reckless disregard for, or willful blindness to, the copyright holder’s rights.” Island Software and Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 263 (2d Cir.2005) (internal citations omitted).

To prove willful infringement, “the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant was actually aware of the infringing activity, or (2) that the defendant’s actions were the result of ‘reckless disregard’ for, or ‘willful blindness’ to, the copyright holder’s rights.” Island Software and Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 263 (2d Cir.2005) (citing In re Aimster *540 Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 650 (7th Cir.2003); Lipton v. Nature Co., 71 F.3d 464, 47…

DISCUSSION A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD The Court may not grant summary judgment “unless there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Island Software and Computer Service, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 260 (2d Cir.2005) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)).

See Island Software & Computer Serv. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 , 261 (2d Cir. 2005).

See Alvarez, 15 F. Supp. at 294 (“[B]road, conclusory attacks on the credibility of a witness will not, by themselves, present questions of material fact, and a party’s uncontroverted assertions will not be disregarded without affirmative evidence warranting an adverse inference.”) (quoting Island Software & Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257 , 261–62 (2d Cir. 2005)); see also Fischl, 128 F.3d at 55 .

See Island Software, 413 F.3d at 263.

See id. at 18–20.

See 17 U.S.C. 2 § 504(c)(2). “[A] finding of ‘willfulness’ in [the copyright] context can be based on either 3 ‘intentional’ behavior, or merely ‘reckless’ behavior.” Barboza v. New Form, Inc. (In re Barboza), 545 4 F.3d 702 , 707 (9th Cir. 2008). “‘To prove ‘willfulness’ under the Copyright Act, the plaintiff must 5 show (1) that the defendant was actually aware of the infringing activity, or (2) that the 6 defendant’s actions were the result of ‘reckless disregard’ for, or…