Plaintiff Nancy Lewis’s pro se complaint for copyright infringement charged that defendant, New Mexico newspaper Rio Grande Sun, ran a front page story she had written without crediting her authorship and published another article with an editorial change she had not approved.1 The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge who recommended that it be dismissed for lack of jurisdic

We are the first federal appellate court called upon to
32 determine whether a webcasting service that provides users
33 with individualized internet radio stations – the content of
34 which can be affected by users’ ratings of songs, artists,
35 and albums – is an interactive service within the meaning of
36 17 U.S.C. § 114(j)(7). If it is an interactive service, the

Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. sued ISPs Akanoc Solutions, Inc. and Managed Solutions Group, Inc. and Steven Chen on Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") violation theories claiming that defendants knowingly allowed others to sell counterfeit Vuitton goods on website hosted by them. Plaintiff produced evidence in support of its claims that defendants knew of the illegal activities being conduc

We must decide whether California law allows a celebrity to sue a greeting card company for using her image and catchphrase in a birthday card without her permission.

I Paris Hilton is a controversial celebrity known for her lifestyle as a flamboyant heiress. As the saying goes, she is “famous for being famous.”

She is also famous for starring in “The Simple Life,” a socalled

[¶1] Appellant, Aviat Aircraft, Inc. (Aviat), seeks review of the district court’s “Judgment in Accordance with Verdict.” We will explain the details below, but we briefly note here that Aviat actually appealed from a decision of the district court that was made independent of, but which was subsumed into, the above identified “Judgment.” We also note that Aviat filed a motion for new t

This case primarily involves a dispute between SCO and Novell regarding the scope of intellectual property in certain UNIX and UnixWare technology and other rights retained by Novell following the sale of part of its UNIX business to Santa Cruz, a predecessor corporate entity to SCO, in the mid-1990s. Following competing motions for summary judgment, the district court issued a detailed opinion gr

Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc. and David York1 appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of their insurer, Assurance Company of America, on their claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Custom Hardware, a corporation with its principal place of business located in Fenton, Missouri, provides service and maintenance

Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting, Inc. and David York1 appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of their insurer, Assurance Company of America, on their claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Custom Hardware, a corporation with its principal place of business located in Fenton, Missouri, provides service and maintenance on computer e

¶1 Richard Vicari and Color Arts Landscaping (collectively “Vicari”) appeal from the portion of the superior court’s final judgment that awarded $1,000 in attorneys’ fees to Lake Havasu City (“the City”). For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 On June 12, 2007, Vicari, a subcontractor for Western Municipal Construction, Inc. (“Western”), filed a fir

Answerthink, Inc., Arista Records, Inc., BMG Music, Capital Records, Inc., Capitol Records, Inc., Elektra Entertainment Group Inc., Fonovisa, Inc., Motown Record Company, L.P., Recording Industry Association of America, Sony Music Entertainment Inc., Sony Music Entertainment Inc., UMG Recordings, Inc., Virgin Records America, Inc., Atlantic Recording Corporation sued Joel Tanenbaum for violatin

Nicholas Lohman appeals from the District Court’s award of $30,000.00 in attorney’s fees following a jury verdict in his favor in his wrongful discharge action. The jury awarded Lohman $12,205.00 in lost wages and nominal damages, after finding Appellees liable on one of Lohman’s three First Amendment retaliation claims. Lohman contends that the District Court improperly considered settlemen

Plaintiffs-Appellants Altvater Gessler-J.A. Baczewski
15 International (USA) Inc. (“Gessler USA”)and Altvater Gessler-J.A.
16 Baczewski GmbH (“Gessler GmbH”) (collectively “Gessler”) are
17 closely held corporations owned by members of the Gessler family.
18 Gessler is the corporate continuation of two businesses that have
19 manufactured and sold alcoholic beverage

This insurance indemnity action is drawn by the packaging of boxes of crayons and colored by the expense of settling a lawsuit directed at the packaging.

Plaintiff Federal Insurance Co. (Federal) filed a declaratory judgment action against defendant Binney & Smith, Inc. (Binney), seeking a declaration that it did not owe a duty to defend or indemnify defendant in connection with a class act

This appeal arises out of an intellectual property dispute between Plaintiff St. Luke’s Cataract and Laser Institute, P.C. (“St. Luke’s”) and Defendants Dr. James C. Sanderson and James C. Sanderson, M.D., LLC (“Dr. Sanderson”) regarding the ownership and use of two Internet domain names (laserspecialist.com and lasereyelid.com) and an Internet website (“the LaserSpecialist.com websi

This appeal concerns whether a defendant is entitled to attorney’s fees as a prevailing party under § 505 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505, when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses without prejudice a lawsuit containing copyright claims. In Corcoran v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 121 F.2d 575, 576 (9th Cir. 1941), we held a defendant in a copyright suit was a prevailing party and wa

We face an issue of first impression for this court–whether the discovery rule or the injury rule governs the accrual of claims under the Copyright Act, which has a threeyear statute of limitations for civil actions, 17 U.S.C. § 507(b).

Under the injury rule, a claim accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, when the plaintiff suffers a legally cognizable injury. Therefore

¶1 The first impression issue presented is whether Marine Power Holding, L.L.C. (MP Holding), a successor company once-removed from Marine Power Engine, Inc. (MP Engine), is liable for a judgment taken against MP Engine. As a general rule, when one company sells or otherwise transfers all its assets to another company, the successor is not liable for the debts and liabilities of the seller. There

Robert Tur, an award-winning helicopter journalist, sued YouTube, a highly popular online video sharing service, for copyright infringement in the Central District of California. YouTube moved for summary judgment based upon the safeharbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 512(c), which the district court denied. Shortly thereafter, Tur, hoping to join a putative New

Angela Brooks-Ngwenya claims that the Indianapolis Public Schools infringed a copyrighted educational program that she had developed while working for the school system. She also accuses the school system of employment discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for IPS.

She had been promoted in October 2002 to classroom assistant at Gambold Middle School. During that school

In this case we consider the constitutionality of the statutory-damages provision found in § 616(a)(1)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. The district court, finding that the statutory-damages provision is unconstitutionally vague and excessive, dismissed the complaints with prejudice. For the reasons stated below, we vacate the rulings of the district co

Plaintiff, Myoda Computer Center, Inc. (Myoda), filed a declaratory judgment action against defendant, American Family Insurance Company (American Family), claiming that American Family was obligated to indemnify Myoda and pay Myoda’s defense costs in settling a lawsuit against it. American Family then filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that it owed Myoda no duty

This case is before this Court for the third time. In the first appeal, Case No. 05-1796, we upheld the district court’s entry of a Default Judgment against Defendants-Appellants on Plaintiff-Appellee’s Complaint for copyright infringement. In the second appeal, Case No. 05-2101, we upheld in part the district court’s award of statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees, and

Dream Games of Arizona (“Dream Games”) prevailed in its lawsuit against PC Onsite for copyright infringement of “Fast Action Bingo,” an electronic video bingo game, and was awarded statutory damages. We must decide whether (1) the district court properly allowed the jury to see unprotectable elements of the game without identifying the protectable elements; (2) the jury should have been al

In theIn the litigation underlying this case, Lorillard Tobacco Co. (“Lorillard”) filed trademark infringement, unfair competition, and Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims against Elston Self Service Wholesale Groceries (“Elston”). Lorillard accuses Elston and individual defendants of selling counterfeit cigarettes bearing Lorillard’s federal trademark registration, NEWPORT®.

This appeal calls upon us to address the scope of the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine, which provides that “lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006). The Supreme Court has only applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a bar to jurisdiction on two occasions, the first instance being Rooker and t