High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
[P
ROPOSED
]
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
JAMES A. DiBOISE, State Bar No. 83296Email: jdiboise@wsgr.comLEO CUNNINGHAM, State Bar No. 121605Email: lcunningham@wsgr.comCOLLEEN BAL, State Bar No. 167637Email: cbal@wsgr.comMICHAEL A. BERTA, State Bar No. 194650Email: mberta@wsgr.comTRACY TOSH LANE, State Bar No. 184666Email: ttosh@wsgr.comWILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional CorporationOne Market StreetSpear Tower, Suite 3300San Francisco, CA 94105Attorneys for PlaintiffsREALNETWORKS, INC. andREALNETWORKS HOMEENTERTAINMENT, INC.(additional counsel listed on following page)UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAREALNETWORKS, INC., a WashingtonCorporation; and REALNETWORKS HOMEENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delawarecorporation,Plaintiffs,v.DVD COPY CONTROL ASSOCIATION, INC., aDelaware nonprofit corporation, DISNEYENTERPRISES, INC., a Delaware corporation;PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP., a Delawarecorporation; SONY PICTURES ENTER., INC., aDelaware corporation; TWENTIETH CENTURYFOX FILM CORP., a Delaware corporation; NBCUNIVERSAL, INC., a Delaware corporation;WARNER BROS. ENTER. INC., a Delawarecorporation; and VIACOM, Inc., a DelawareCorporation,Defendants.Case Nos. C08 04548 MHP;C08 04719 MHP
[PROPOSED] SECOND AMENDEDCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYRELIEF AND VIOLATION OFSHERMAN ACT AND STATE LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AND RELATED CASES
Case 3:08-cv-04548-MHP Document 324-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 1 of 39
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
[P
ROPOSED
]
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
-2-DONALD E. SCOTT, (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)Email: donald.scott@bartlit-beck.comMARK S. OUWELEEN, (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)Email: mark.ouweleen@bartlit-beck.com
KARMA M. GIULIANELLI, State Bar No. 184175Email: karma.giulianelli@bartlit-beck.comBARTLIT BECK HERMANPALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP1899 Wynkoop Street, 8
th
FloorDenver, CO 80202
Case 3:08-cv-04548-MHP Document 324-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 2 of 39
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
[P
ROPOSED
]
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
-3-1.
This is an action for (1) a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and28 U.S.C. § 2202, brought by RealNetworks, Inc. (“RealNetworks”) and RealNetworks HomeEntertainment, Inc. (“RealNetworks Home”) (together, “Plaintiffs”) by and through counsel,against defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corp., Sony PicturesEntertainment, Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., NBC Universal, Inc., Warner Bros.Entertainment, Inc., Viacom, Inc. (collectively the “Studio Defendants”) and DVD Copy ControlAssociation (“DVD CCA”) (where the Studio Defendants and the DVD CCA shall be referred tocollectively as “Defendants”) for the purpose of determining a question of actual controversy andthe rights and obligations between the parties (“Declaratory Relief”); and (2) a judgment againstDefendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, the CaliforniaCartwright Act, Bus. & Prof. Code § 16700
et seq
., and the California Unfair Competition Law,Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200
et seq
. (“Antitrust Claims”), as follows:
JURISDICTION ,VENUE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE
2.
This court has jurisdiction over the claims asserted for declaratory relief becausethe underlying action concerns a federal question. The Defendants in this matter would be filing aclaim against one or more of Plaintiffs under the DMCA. Because the crux of this matter involvesa federal right, this court properly maintains jurisdiction over this action for declaratory relief under the DMCA under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This court has jurisdiction over the claims for violationof Section 1 of the Sherman Act under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1337(a). This court hassupplemental jurisdiction of all other claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.3.
Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), because asubstantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.Additionally, pursuant to § 10.4 of the CSS License Agreement, exclusive jurisdiction and venueover any dispute arising out of the agreement exists in the federal and state courts of Santa ClaraCounty, California.4.
The actions complained of have occurred in and substantially affect interstatecommerce.
Case 3:08-cv-04548-MHP Document 324-2 Filed 05/13/2009 Page 3 of 39
Add a Comment