Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
No. 11-3190UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUITFLAVA WORKS, INC.,Plaintiff-Appellee,v.MARQUES RONDALE GUNTER d/b/amyVIDSTER.com. and SalsaIndy, LLC,Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal From The United States District Court ForThe Northern District of Illinois, Eastern DivisionCase No. 1:10-cv-06517The Honorable Judge John F. Grady
BRIEF AND SHORT APPENDIX OFDEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
NEAL, GERBER & EISENBERG LLPKevin C. MayWilliam J. LenzGregory J. LeightonKathleen E. BlouinTwo North LaSalle Street, Suite 1700Chicago, Illinois 60602312-269-8000
 Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants, Marques Rondale Gunter d/b/amyVIDSTER.Com. and SalsaIndy, LLC 
Case: 11-3190 Document: 10-1 Filed: 11/23/2011 Pages: 80
(1 of 402)
 
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE
S
T
AT
E
MEN
T
 
Appellate
 
Court
 
No:
 
11-3190
 
Short
 
Caption: Flava Works, Inc. v. Marques Rondale Gunter, et al.
 To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental partyor amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosure statement providing thefollowing information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed
immediately following
docketing; but, the disclosure statementmust be filed within 21 days of 
docketing
or
upon
the
filing
of a motion,
response, petition,
or answer in this court,
whichever
occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any material changes in the requiredinformation. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contents of the party’s main brief.
Counsel is
required
t
o
complete the entire
statement
and to use N/A for any
information
that is not applicable if this form is
use
d.
 
[ ] PLEASE CHECK HERE IF ANY
INFORMATION
ON THIS FORM IS NEW OR
REVISED
AND INDICATE WHICH
INFORMATION
IS NEW OR
R
EV
ISE
D.
 
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you must providethe corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P 26.1 by completing item #3):
Marques Rondale GunterSalsaIndy, LLC
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (including proceedingsin the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in this court:
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation:i) Identify all its parent corporations, if any; and
None
ii) list any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party’s or amicus’ stock:
None
Attorney’s Signature: /s/William J. Lenz Date: November 23, 2011Attorney’s Printed Name: William J. LenzPlease indicate if you are Counsel
of 
Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d). Yes X NoAddress: Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, Two North LaSalle Street, Suite 1700, Chicago, Illinois 60602Phone Number: (312) 269-8000 Fax Number: (312) 269-1747E-Mail Address: wlenz@ngelaw.com
Case: 11-3190 Document: 10-1 Filed: 11/23/2011 Pages: 80
(2 of 402)
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
Page
 
i
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................................................................. 1STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES................................................................................................... 1STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................................................... 2STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................ 2SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 6ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 7I. STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................... 7II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING FLAVA WORKS HASSHOWN A LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS ........................................ 8A. myVidster Users Who Create Links To Videos Residing on Third-PartyWebsites Cannot Be Direct Infringers As A Matter Of Law ............................... 101. The Ninth Circuit’s Perfect 10 Decision Is Directly Applicable ToThis Case .................................................................................................. 122. This Court Should Adopt The Perfect 10 Standard And The“Server Test” ............................................................................................ 16B. Not Only Are myVidster Users Not Direct Infringers, No Evidence WasPresented That They Are Contributory Infringers ............................................... 19C. myVidster’s Repeat Infringer Policy Is More Than Reasonable Given ThatmyVidster Users Can, At Most, Be Contributory Infringers ............................... 20III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY PRESUMING IRREPARABLE HARM .............. 24IV. THE LOWER COURT ERRED BY GRANTING AN AFFIRMATIVE, VAGUEAND UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION .................................. 26CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 30CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................................................... 31CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................................................... 32CIRCUIT RULE 30(d) STATEMENT ........................................................................................ 33
Case: 11-3190 Document: 10-1 Filed: 11/23/2011 Pages: 80
(3 of 402)
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more