October 9, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Grande Communications Networks, L.L.C., 23-50162, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Higginson, J. (Higginbotham, Stewart, Higginson), copyright, jury instructions
    • Affirming judgment on jury verdict (and denial of JMOL) that defendant internet service provider was liable for contributory copyright infringement on plaintiff independent record labels’ copyright claims; vacating damages award predicated on statutory damages for each of the 1,403 songs at issue in the claims; and remanding for a new trial on damages.
    • Plaintiffs’ claims arise from BitTorrent users’ sharing of music files without authorization, and the failure of the ISP defendant to identify and address the misconduct of its subscribers, where only the ISP can identify what person/subscriber corresponds to a particular IP address. The Court noted that the safe harbor provision of § 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act “balances the interests of copyright owners (who need the help of ISPs to stop mass infringements by subscribers of their networks) and ISPs (who are immunized from infringement claims seeking damages if they take steps to address their infringing subscribers).”
    • The Court held that the “material contribution” analysis applies as a basis for contributory copyright infringement, where “one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.”
    • In a question of first impression in the Fifth Circuit, the Court held that each recording shared in violation of the copyright did not constitute a separate “work” constituting a violation for purposes of statutory damages, but that multiple recordings from a single album would combine to form one “work.”

Unpublished

  • LMC Properties, Inc. v. Prolink Roofing Systems, Inc., 23-11090, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wilson, Douglas, Vitter, by designation), personal jurisdiction, default judgment
    • Vacating district court’s denial of a motion to vacate default judgment, holding that district court should have first addressed its personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
  • Sinegal v. P N K Lake Charles, L.L.C., 24-30293, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), personal tort, sanctions
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s slip-and-fall suit with prejudice as a sanction for vexatious and threatening conduct.
  • U.S. v. Howard, 24-40033, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Southwick, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming conviction and 62-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
  • Drummer v. Brown, 24-50004, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jolly, Graves, Oldham), prisoner suit
    • Affirming dismissal of Texas state prisoner’s § 1983 suit.