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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Righthaven v. Wolf - Reply Brief of Amicus Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation

Righthaven v. Wolf - Reply Brief of Amicus Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation

Ratings: (0)|Views: 24|Likes:
Published by Devlin Hartline

More info:

Published by: Devlin Hartline on Sep 07, 2011
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

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

09/07/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 1:11-cv-00830-JLK RIGHTHAVEN, LLC,Plaintiff,v.LELAND WOLF, an individual, andIT MAKES SENSE BLOG, an entity of unknown origin and nature,Defendants.
REPLY BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
Case 1:11-cv-00830-JLK Document 38 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 25
 
i
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 2I.
DISMISSAL ON THE MERITS IS PROPER AT THIS STAGE, WHETHER UNDER A RULE 12(B)(1) STANDARD OF REVIEW, OR, IN THEALTERNATIVE, A RULE 56 STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................... 2A.
D
ISMISSAL WITH
P
REJUDICE
I
S
A
PPROPRIATE
.............................................. 2B. T
HE
P
ROCEDURAL
P
OSTURE OF THIS
C
ASE
A
LLOWS FOR 
I
MMEDIATE
D
ISMISSAL
U
 NDER 
E
ITHER A
ULE
12(
B
)(1)
OR 
ULE
56
 
S
TANDARD
.......... 5II. RIGHTHAVEN CANNOT REFUTE WHAT THE COPYRIGHT ALLIANCEAGREEMENT MAKES CLEAR: RIGHTHAVEN DOES NOT OWN ACOPYRIGHT INTEREST IN THE RELEVANT WORK AND IS THUSBARRED FROM BRINGING A CLAIM OF INFRINGEMENT ......................... 8A. T
HE
C
OPYRIGHT
A
SSIGNMENT
I
S
I
 NVALID
U
 NDER THE
P
LAIN
L
ANGUAGEOF THE
C
OPYRIGHT
A
LLIANCE
A
GREEMENT
................................................. 8B.
IGHTHAVEN
C
ANNOT
S
ALVAGE
I
TS
D
EFICIENT
S
TANDING
C
LAIM WITHAN
A
RGUMENT THAT
I
T
M
AY
H
AVE
,
 
O
 NCE UPON A
T
IME
,
FOR A
 N
ANOSECOND
,
 
P
OSSESSED
O
WNERSHIP OF THE
W
ORK 
.............................. 10C.
IGHTHAVEN
S
A
PPEALS TO
P
ATENT AND
T
RADEMARK 
L
AW TO
ESCUETHE
F
LAWED
A
SSIGNMENT
A
RE
U
 NAVAILING
............................................ 11III. ISSUE PRECLUSION (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL) IS APPROPRIATE ........ 13A. T
HE
 N
EVADA
C
ASES
W
ERE
F
INAL
A
DJUDICATIONS ON THE
M
ERITS
......... 13B. T
HE
O
WNERSHIP
Q
UESTION AT
I
SSUE
I
S
I
DENTICAL TO THE
O
WNERSHIP
Q
UESTION
P
REVIOUSLY
D
ECIDED
.............................................................. 16CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 18
Case 1:11-cv-00830-JLK Document 38 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 25
 
ii
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESFederal Cases
 Arnold v. Air Midwest, Inc.
,100 F.3d 857 (10th Cir. 1996)
............................................................................................. 6
 
 Blair v. Wills
,
 
420 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................... 7
 Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp.
,434 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006) ......................................................................................... 15
 Bryce v. Episcopal Church
,
 
289 F.3d 648 (10th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................... 5, 6
 B-S Steel of Kan., Inc. v. Tex. Indus., Inc.
,439 F.3d 653 (10th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................... 16
 Burnham v. Humphrey Hospitality Reit Trust, Inc.
,
 
403 F.3d 709 (10th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................. 6
Campbell v. Trustees of Stanford Univ.
,817 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................................... 9
Clark v. Tarrant County, Texas
,798 F.2d 736 (5th Cir. 1986) ............................................................................................... 3
Cook v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co.
,775 F.2d 1030 (9th Cir. 1985) ........................................................................................... 14
 Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
,326 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................... 13, 14
 Flast v. Cohen
,392 U.S. 83 (1968) .............................................................................................................. 2
 Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc.,
 No. 09-56317, 2011 WL 3633512 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2011) ............................................. 15
Gagliano v. Potter,
 No. 09-2576, 2010 WL 4577904 (D. Colo. Sept. 15, 2010) ............................................... 6
Case 1:11-cv-00830-JLK Document 38 Filed 09/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 25

You're Reading a Free Preview

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