Case 2:17-cv-00327-TSZ Document 87 Filed 03/08/18 Page 1 of 31 HONORABLE THOMAS S. ZILLY 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 ) 9 HARMONY GOLD U.S.A., INC., ) CASE NO. 2:17-CV-00327-TSZ ) 10 Plaintiff, ) PIRANHA’S SECOND MOTION FOR 11 ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO v. PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF STANDING ) 12 ) TO ASSERT COPYRIGHT HAREBRAINED SCHEMES LLC, INFRINGEMENT CLAIM HAREBRAINED HOLDINGS, INC., JORDAN ) 13 WEISMAN, PIRANHA GAMES INC. and DOES ) NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR: 1–10, ) 14 MARCH 30, 2018 ) Defendants. 15 ) ) 16 ) ) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PIRANHA’S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP AS TO PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF STANDING TO ASSERT COPYRIGHT U.S. BANK BUILDING CENTRE 1420 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 3400 INFRINGEMENT CLAIM SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 PHONE: (206) 903-8800 Case No. 2:17-cv-00327-TSZ FAX: (206) 903-8820 Case 2:17-cv-00327-TSZ Document 87 Filed 03/08/18 Page 2 of 31 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED ...............................................................1 3 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2 A. Harmony Gold’s Second Amended Complaint Does Not Allege Any New 4 Facts Affecting Harmony Gold’s Lack of Standing ................................................2 5 B. Big West and Studio Nue Created the Big West Characters ...................................3 6 C. Tatsunoko Received Limited Rights in the Macross Motion Picture, But Not in the Big West Characters ...............................................................................9 7 D. Tatsunoko Licensed Its Limited Rights to Harmony Gold ......................................9 8 E. The Japanese Courts Confirmed Big West’s Ownership of the Copyrights in the Characters ....................................................................................................10 9 F. The U.S. Litigation Confirmed Big West’s Ownership of the Copyrights in 10 the Characters.........................................................................................................11 11 III. ARGUMENT .....................................................................................................................12 12 A. The Legal Standard for a Motion for Summary Judgment ....................................13 B. Harmony Gold Lacks Standing Because It Is Not the Owner or Exclusive 13 Licensee of Any Copyright in the Characters ........................................................13 14 1. Only the Legal or Beneficial Owner of an Exclusive Right Can Sue for Infringement .........................................................................................13 15 2. Tatsunoko Never Owned Any Copyright in the Big West 16 Characters ..................................................................................................14 17 3. The Japanese Courts Confirmed that Tatsunoko Never Owned Any Copyright in the Big West Characters .......................................................15 18 4. Big West’s Copyright Registration Is Prima Facie Evidence of the 19 Validity of Big West’s Copyrights ............................................................16 5. Harmony Gold’s Copyright Registration for the “Motion Picture” 20 Does Not Give It Any Rights in the Big West Characters .........................18 21 C. Collateral Estoppel Precludes Harmony Gold from Re-Litigating the Scope of Its Rights .................................................................................................19 22 1. The Elements of Collateral Estoppel .........................................................20 23 2. Determining the Scope of Harmony Gold’s Rights under the 24 License Agreement Was Critical and Necessary to the Judgment ............22 D. The Recent Amendments to the Complaint Do Not Prevent Summary 25 Judgment ................................................................................................................22 PIRANHA’S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF STANDING TO ASSERT COPYRIGHT DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP COLUMBIA CENTER INFRINGEMENT CLAIM 701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 6100 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 Case No. 2:17-cv-00327-TSZ - ii PHONE: (206) 903-8800 FAX: (206) 903-8820 Case 2:17-cv-00327-TSZ Document 87 Filed 03/08/18 Page 3 of 31 1 IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................24 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PIRANHA’S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF STANDING TO ASSERT COPYRIGHT DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP COLUMBIA CENTER INFRINGEMENT CLAIM 701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 6100 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 Case No. 2:17-cv-00327-TSZ - iii PHONE: (206) 903-8800 FAX: (206) 903-8820 Case 2:17-cv-00327-TSZ Document 87 Filed 03/08/18 Page 4 of 31 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Allen v. McCurry, 5 449 U.S. 90 (1980) ...................................................................................................................20 6 Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) .................................................................................................................21 7 C.D. Anderson & Co., Inc. v. Lemos, 8 832 F.2d 1097 (9th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................20 9 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 10 477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................13 11 CJ Prods. LLC v. Snuggly Plushez LLC, 809 F. Supp. 2d 127 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) .....................................................................................17 12 Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., 13 966 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................21 14 DC Comics v. Towle, 15 802 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................3, 19 16 Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 340 U.S. 558 (1950) .................................................................................................................21 17 Entm’t Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis Creative Grp., Inc., 18 122 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 1997) .................................................................................................17 19 Harmony Gold, USA, Inc. v. Tatsunoko Production Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:17-cv-06034-PA-MRW (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2017) ....................................2, 12, 17 20 21 Marya v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 975 (C.D. Cal. 2015) .....................................................................................14 22 Michael Grecco Photography, Inc. v. Everett Collection, Inc., 23 589 F. Supp. 2d 375 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)......................................................................................17 24 North Coast Indus. v. Maxwell, 972 F.2d 1031 (9th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................13 25 PIRANHA’S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF STANDING TO ASSERT COPYRIGHT DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP COLUMBIA CENTER INFRINGEMENT CLAIM 701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 6100 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 Case No. 2:17-cv-00327-TSZ - iv PHONE: (206) 903-8800 FAX: (206) 903-8820 Case 2:17-cv-00327-TSZ Document 87 Filed 03/08/18 Page 5 of 31 1 Righthaven LLC v. Hoehn, 716 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................13, 14, 23 2 Russell v. Price, 3 612 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1979) .................................................................................................18 4 S. Cal. Darts Ass’n v. Zaffina, 5 762 F.3d 921 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................13 6 Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................................13, 14 7 Town of N. Bonneville v. Callaway, 8 10 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1993) .............................................................................................20, 22 9 Trevino v. Gates, 10 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996) .....................................................................................................20 11 Tri-Tron Intern. v. Velto, 525 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1975) ...................................................................................................22 12 U.S. v. King Features Entm’t, Inc., 13 843 F.2d 394 (9th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................15 14 Statutes 15 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.........................................................................................................................12 16 9 U.S.C. § 13(c) .................................................................................................................12, 19, 21 17 17 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim 18 17 U.S.C. § 103(b) ...............................................................................................................1, 15, 18 19 17 U.S.C. § 106 ........................................................................................................................14, 23 20 17 U.S.C. § 201(a) .........................................................................................................................15