Beatles rights holders Apple Corps and Subafilms “satisfied the requirements” for a preliminary injunction to enjoin 63 defendants from trafficking in counterfeit Beatles goods on the internet (see 2307200048), said an order signed Friday (docket 0:23-cv-60769) by U.S. District Judge Rodney Smith for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. The plaintiffs submitted “sufficient evidence” showing each defendant infringed at least one or more of the Beatles marks, said the order. The court concludes that Apple Corps and Subafilms “have a strong probability of proving at trial that consumers are likely to be confused” by the defendants’ promotion and sales of the counterfeits or “colorable imitations” of the Beatles marks, it said. The infringement will likely cause the plaintiffs “to suffer immediate and irreparable injury” if a preliminary injunction isn’t granted, it said.

A mediation status report is due Aug. 8 in Cisco’s trade secret misappropriation appeal against Poly and its hardware and software architect Wilson Chung, said a 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court order Tuesday (docket 23-15590). Under the court’s newly amended briefing schedule, Cisco’s opening brief is due Sept. 27, and the appellees’ answering brief Oct. 27, said the order. Cisco’s appeal asserts the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to Poly and Chung, and when it denied Cisco's motions for spoliation sanctions (see 2305010007). Cisco alleges Chung improperly kept “substantial Cisco confidential information” for the Cisco 730 headset and the Webex Desk Pro when he left Cisco in 2019 to join Poly, then disclosed those trade secrets to other Poly employees (see 2304220002).

The public may soon get its first look into the identities of the defendants that Beatles rights holder Apple Corps and its Subafilms subsidiary, owner of the Yellow Submarine trademark, allege are trafficking in counterfeit goods on the internet (see 2304270048). The rights holders are seeking an order unsealing all documents that have been restricted or sealed from the court docket and returning all portions of the court file to the public domain, said its motion Friday (docket 0:23-cv-60769) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. The plaintiffs have already served the sealed temporary restraining order issued July 5 by the court “on the requisite financial institutions” to restrain the defendants’ bank accounts at issue in the case, it said. The defendants soon will be served with the sealed TRO, “together with all other documents filed in this case,” it said: “A seal on this matter is no longer required.” Temporarily sealing materials in the court file, including the identities of the defendants, will prevent the wrongdoers from prematurely receiving notice of the plaintiffs’ investigation into the operation of their illegal businesses, said the plaintiffs’ April 26 motion to seal (see 2304270048).

U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen for Northern California in San Jose granted McAfee’s motion to dismiss pro se plaintiff James Linlor’s cybersquatting complaint, but declined McAfee’s request to declare Linlor a vexatious litigant (see 2306130049), said her signed order Friday (docket 5:23-cv-00385). Linlor had alleged that McAfee’s unlawful use of the Cyberguard.com domain was inhibiting him from getting his cybersecurity consultancy off the ground under a similar name. McAfee’s defense included its assertion that it sold the domain to Musarubra in 2021. Van Keulen’s order rendered as moot Linlor’s motions to add Musarubra as a defendant and to transfer the case to Delaware where Musarubra is domiciled. Linlor’s allegations under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act must be dismissed for failure to state a claim, said the order. In declining to grant Linlor leave to amend his ACPA claim, Van Keulen “acknowledges that courts must give pro se litigants the benefit of the doubt when evaluating claims on a motion to dismiss,” said the order. But pro se litigants “still must be able to state a claim for relief to proceed with an action,” it said. “Here, the key facts are undisputed and will not change if the case continues into the discovery phase.” The length of time between Linlor’s registration of the domain and his first use of Cyberguard in commerce “is too large to be cured through the allegation of additional facts,” it said. Linlor further conceded on the record that his service mark Cyberguard was not distinctive at the time the domain was registered in 1998, it said. That’s an admission that “eviscerates his ACPA claim,” it said. The court is convinced that Linlor “can allege no set of facts that would remedy these deficiencies,” it said. Because Van Keulen is dismissing Linlor’s claims without leave to amend, she declines McAfee’s request to declare Linlor a vexatious litigant “at this juncture,” said the order. But Linlor is reminded that “he has obligations” under Federal Rule 11(b) “whenever he files a pleading, motion, or other paper” with the court, it said: “A future federal court may find sanctions are warranted, particularly if Linlor continues to file papers presenting incendiary and groundless statements.”

Redoak Communications and Amazon stipulate that the sale on Amazon.com of lawfully made VHS, DVD and Blu-ray copies of the horror film Just Before Dawn doesn’t infringe any Redoak copyright, said their stipulation of noninfringement Friday (docket 9:23-cv-80008) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in West Palm Beach. Amazon’s counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement is dismissed, said the stipulation. “The parties reserve all rights, including any rights related to seeking or defending against a claim for attorney fees or costs in this action,” it said. Amazon’s March 1 counterclaims also asserted Redoak’s infringement allegations were barred by the first-sale doctrine (see 2303140048).

The parties in four book publishers’ case against Internet Archive apparently are finding it tough drafting a joint proposal for the appropriate procedure to determine the judgment to be entered in their case. U.S. District Judge John Koeltl for Southern New York in Manhattan granted summary judgment March 24 in the publishers’ favor, saying IA “pushed fair use to illogical markers” when, without the publishers’ permission, it scanned print copies of physical books and lent the digital copies to users of IA’s website (see 2303270006). Koetl’s March 24 order gave the parties two weeks to April 7 to submit their joint proposal. His latest order Thursday (docket 1:20-cv-04160) extending the deadline to July 14 was the eighth extension he has granted. The parties’ motion for the July 14 deadline extension said the sides “have continued to engage in constructive conversations directed towards our shared goal of submitting a joint procedure” to the court. The parties “are currently engaged in drafting a consent judgment subject to a right of appeal,” plus other documents “reflecting the parties' anticipated agreements,” said their motion. The parties expect to submit their joint proposal to the court “in the next several weeks,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra for Southern Florida in West Palm Beach denied Frolic Pictures owner Jared Masters' motion to dismiss the direct copyright infringement claim brought against him by plaintiff Redoak Communications, said Marra’s signed order Thursday (docket 9:23-cv-80008). Redoak alleges it owns a valid copyright for Just Before Dark, and that Frolic distributed DVDs of the horror film for retail sale through Amazon and Walmart without a valid license or authorization from Redoak. The complaint further alleges Masters knew or should have known that the film belonged to Redoak and knew his actions constituted copyright infringement. Masters doesn’t challenge whether the complaint alleges a claim of direct copyright infringement but instead argues Redoak “fails to provide allegations that Frolic’s corporate veil should be pierced in order to hold Masters liable,” said Marra’s order. But Masters “failed to distinguish direct liability from vicarious liability,” it said. For that reason, Masters’ motion to dismiss on the basis that the complaint doesn’t allege facts “supporting the piercing of the corporate veil is rejected,” it said. The complaint alleges direct liability against Masters, and there’s “no basis to dismiss this count for a failure to state a claim,” it said.

Cable ISP WideOpenWest and movie production companies suing it for secondary liability for movie piracy by WOW subscribers (see 2111010043) are clashing over the proposed filing of an amended complaint. Nearly two years after suing WOW, the plaintiffs are trying to use a proposed second amended and supplemental complaint to add new plaintiffs, new allegations and hundreds of new copyrighted works, WOW said in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to file the amended complaint (docket 1:21-cv-01901). It told the U.S. District Court in Colorado Wednesday that the plaintiffs are "attempting to piggyback off of the filing date of Plaintiffs’ complaint to avoid statute of limitations issues for its new claims, even though those new claims have virtually nothing to do with the existing case." In the motion last month asking to file the supplemental complaint, the plaintiffs said the case had been stayed from December 2021 until March 31 of this year, pending a ruing on WOW's motion to dismiss, so they could not have sought to amend the pleading until March 31 anyway. They said the motion picture copyright registrations for some of the titles sought to be added in the amended pleading were obtained while this case was stayed.

U.S. District Judge John Tharp for Northern Illinois in Chicago granted the unopposed motion of defendant Hytera Communications to extend the pretrial motions deadlines in the government’s criminal technology-theft case against the Chinese manufacturer, said a docket entry notification Thursday (docket 1:20-cr-00688). Pretrial motions are now due July 21, responses Aug. 18 and replies Sept. 8, it said. The previously scheduled Feb. 5 trial date stands, it said. A grand jury returned indictments in May 2021 listing 22 counts of trade secret theft against Hytera and seven of its engineers who developed digital mobile radios for Motorola in Malaysia beginning in 2004 (see 2301260060). The engineers quit Motorola in 2008 and 2009 to go to work for Hytera in Shenzhen, and the government alleges they took Motorola’s DMR trade secrets with them when they left.

Grande Communications Networks seeks review from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the district court’s May 11 denial of its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial (see 2305120027), said its amended notice of appeal Friday (docket 1:17-cv-00365) in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin. Grande is seeking to vacate a Nov. 3 jury verdict awarding major record labels $46.8 million in damages for Grande’s secondary copyright infringement.