Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
gov.uscourts.cacd.533147.157.0

gov.uscourts.cacd.533147.157.0

Ratings: (0)|Views: 297 |Likes:
Published by eriq_gardner6833
opposition
opposition

More info:

Published by: eriq_gardner6833 on Mar 18, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
CV12-04529-DMG(SH
X
DISH’
S
O
PP
.
TO
F
OX
S
M
OT
.
FOR 
P
RELIM
. I
 NJ
. (2)
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728WILLIAM A. MOLINSKI SBN 145186wmolinski@orrick.comORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200Los Angeles, California 90017Tel: +1-213-629-2020 / Fax: +1-213-612-2499ANNETTE L. HURST (SBN 148738)ahurst@orrick.comORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP405 Howard StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2669Tel: +1-415-773-5700 / Fax: +1-415-773-5759E. JOSHUA ROSENKRANZ (
 pro hac vice
) jrosenkranz@orrick.comPETER A. BICKS (
 pro hac vice
) pbicks@orrick.comELYSE D. ECHTMAN (
 pro hac vice
)eechtman@orrick.comLISA T. SIMPSON (
 pro hac vice
)lsimpson@orrick.comORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP51 West 52
nd
Street New York, New York 10019-6142Tel: +1-212-506-5000 / Fax: +1-212-506-5151MARK A. LEMLEY (SBN 155830)mlemley@durietangri.comMICHAEL PAGE (SBN 154913)mpage@durietangri.comDURIE TANGRI LLP217 Leidesdorff StreetSan Francisco, California 94111Tel: +1-415-362-6666Attorneys for Defendants DISH Network L.L.C.,DISH Network Corp. and EchoStar TechnologiesL.L.C.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAFOX BROADCASTING COMPANY,
et al 
.,Plaintiffs,v.DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
et al 
.,Defendants.Case No. CV12-04529 DMG SHx
[PUBLICVERSION]DISH’SOPPOSITIONTOFOX’SMOTIONFORAPRELIMINARYINJUNCTIONON“DISH’SNEW2013SERVICES”
Case 2:12-cv-04529-DMG-SH Document 157 Filed 03/15/13 Page 1 of 44 Page ID #:4458
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
-i-
CV12-04529-DMG(SH
X
)
DISH’
S
O
PP
.
TO
F
OX
S
M
OT
.
FOR 
P
RELIM
.I
 NJ
.(2
)
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT........................................1STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................3A.How Sling Technology Works.............................................................3B.Sling’s Critical And Commercial Success............................................4C.Hopper Transfers And Its Predecessors................................................6D.The Course Of ConductUnder The 2002 Agreement AndSubsequent Negotiations Of The 2010 Agreement..............................7ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................9I.FOX IS NOT LIKELY TOSUCCEED ON ITS COPYRIGHTCLAIM..........................................................................................................10A.DISH Does Not “Perform” A Work When Subscribers UseSling....................................................................................................11B.DISH Anywhere/Sling Is Not A Public Performance........................14C.DISH Anywhere/Sling Is Fair Use.....................................................181.Sling Use Is Noncommercial And Transformative..................182.Sling Transmissions By Subscribers Do Not Harm TheValue Of The Copyrighted Work.............................................20D.Fox’s Copyright Claim Is Barred By Laches.....................................21II.FOX IS NOT LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON ITS CONTRACTCLAIMS........................................................................................................23A.DISH Anywhere/Sling Does Not Breach The Parties’Agreements.........................................................................................23B.Hopper Transfers Does Not Breach The 2002 RTC Agreement........27III.THERE IS NO LIKELIHOOD OF IRREPARABLE HARM.....................29A.Fox’s Delay Precludes Any Notion Of Irreparable Harm..................29B.Any Alleged Harm Is Compensable In Damages...............................30C.Fox’s Claims of Harm Are Conclusory and Speculative...................32IV.THE OTHER FACTORS ALSO FAVOR DISH.........................................34CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................35
Case 2:12-cv-04529-DMG-SH Document 157 Filed 03/15/13 Page 2 of 44 Page ID #:4459
 
-ii-
CV12-04529-DMG(SH
X
DISH’
S
O
PP
.
TO
F
OX
S
M
OT
.
FOR 
P
RELIM
.I
 NJ
.(2)
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
C
ASES
 A.V. v. iParadigms, LLC 
,562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009)..............................................................................19
 ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.
,694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................31
 American Passage Media Corp. v. Cass Commc’ns, Inc.
,750 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1985)............................................................................32
 American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. AEREO, Inc.
,874 F. Supp. 2d 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)....................................................10,15, 17
 Anderson v. United States
,612 F.2d 1112 (9th Cir. 1979)............................................................................30
Caribbean Marine Servs. Co. v. Baldridge
,844 F.2d 668 (9th Cir. 1988)..............................................................................32
Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.
,536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008).............................................................12,13,15, 17
Castle Rock Entm’t v. Carol Publ’g Grp.
,150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998)...............................................................................20
Chicago United Indus., Ltd. v. City of Chicago
,445 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2006) .............................................................................31
Cnty. of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co.
,266 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2001).........................................................................26, 27
Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Prof’l Real Estate Investors, Inc.
,866 F.2d 278 (9th Cir. 1989).......................................................................
 passimCoStar Grp., Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc.
,373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004)..............................................................................13
Ctr. for Food Safety v. Schafer 
,2010 WL 964017 (N.D. Cal. March 16, 2010)..................................................35
Case 2:12-cv-04529-DMG-SH Document 157 Filed 03/15/13 Page 3 of 44 Page ID #:4460

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->