Grande Communications’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), or a new trial, filed last month in U.S. District Court for Western Texas in Austin, has “no valid basis to upend the jury’s verdict,” said Universal Music Group and other music label plaintiffs Monday in a memorandum of law (docket 1:17-cv-00365) opposing the internet service provider’s motion. Most of Grande’s arguments in the renewed motion for JMOL aren’t based on the “legal sufficiency of the evidence at trial, but rather seek to re-litigate nearly a dozen issues of law” that the court has already considered and resolved in plaintiffs’ favor, said the memorandum. The proper forum to raise challenges is the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court, where the music labels filed notice last week of a conditional cross-appeal of the final judgment entered Jan. 30 in their favor by U.S. District Judge David Ezra (see 2303160029). Grande’s “implicit request” that the district court “act as its own appellate panel and reverse its prior legal rulings is improper in a motion for JMOL and should be summarily rejected,” plaintiffs said. The jury found in plaintiffs’ favor “on every issue it was asked to resolved,” which is “why the Court denied Grande’s request for JMOL the first time it raised it,” said the memorandum: “Nothing has changed since then.” Grande’s request for a new trial should be denied because the only basis the ISP asserts for its entitlement to relief is its disagreement with some of the court’s evidentiary rulings during the trial, and its attempt to relitigate those rulings through Rule 59 “is improper.” Plaintiffs alleged Grande induced or caused the direct infringement of copyright by not terminating accounts of repeat infringing subscribers. The jury concluded that Grande was liable for contributory copyright infringement and had willfully infringed plaintiffs’ copyrights and that plaintiffs should be awarded $46.8 million in statutory damages. Grande said last week in an opposing motion the court should reject the music labels’ request for an additional $13 million recovery.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap for Eastern Texas in Marshall signed an order Monday (docket 2:22-cv-00471) referring the recording industry’s contributory infringement case against Altice to mediation under retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Suzanne Segal for Central California in Los Angeles (see 2303170034). Gilstrap’s order designates Michael Allan of Steptoe & Johnson, plaintiff BMG Rights Management's lead counsel, as the party “responsible for timely contacting the mediator and defendants’ counsel to coordinate a date for the mediation.” The mediation will be governed by the “court-annexed mediation plan” for the Eastern District of Texas, said the order. The mediation plan requires the presence at the mediation conference of all parties, corporate representatives and any other required “claims professionals,” such as insurance adjusters, “with full authority to negotiate a settlement,” said the order. The music companies allege Altice ignored the rampant copyright infringement of its high-speed internet subscribers, and Altice moved to dismiss their complaint, asserting it can't be expected to police the internet.

BMG Rights Management and its co-plaintiff record labels conferred with defendant Altice USA and agreed on the choice of former U.S. Magistrate Judge Suzanne Segal of Signature Resolution in Los Angeles to oversee mediation in their contributory infringement dispute, said their notice Thursday (docket 2:22-cv-00471) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Marshall. Segal was a magistrate judge for 18 years in the Central District of California before retiring in 2020, per her LinkedIn bio. The music companies allege Altice ignored the rampant copyright infringement of its high-speed internet subscribers, and Altice moved to dismiss their complaint, asserting it can't be expected to police the internet (see 2303140008).

Walmart.com “denies each and every allegation” from independent film company Redoak Communications that it’s unlawfully selling unlicensed DVD and Blu-ray copies online of the 1981 horror film Just Before Dawn (see 2301060023), said the retailer’s answer with a jury demand Monday (docket 9:23-cv-80008) in U.S. District Court for South Florida in West Palm Beach. Redoak also is suing Amazon, Best Buy and Target with the same allegations, and Amazon answered March 1 with a countersuit asserting Redoak’s claims are preempted by the first-sale doctrine (see 2303100001). Walmart.com likewise argued Redoak’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the first-sale doctrine because once Redoak’s licensees sold products in commerce, it had “no right to control subsequent disposition or sales of those products.” Redoak’s claims also are barred by its failure to provide “valid notices” under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, said Walmart.com. It urged dismissal of the complaint with prejudice and the denial of all relief sought by Redoak, plus recovery of court costs.

The plaintiff record labels in the case against internet service provider Grande Communications Network filed notice Monday (docket 1:17-cv-00365) of a conditional cross-appeal at the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court of the final judgment entered Jan. 30 in their favor by U.S. District Judge David Ezra for Western Texas in Austin. A jury awarded the labels $46.77 million in statutory damages Nov. 3 for Grande’s willful contributory infringement of 1,403 copyrighted works, and Ezra’s judgment mirrored the jury’s verdict. But Grande filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively a new trial, and also is appealing Ezra’s judgment and the verdict to the 5th Circuit (see 2303020031). The labels’ cross-appeal is conditional on Grande’s appeal resulting in any portion of the final judgment “being reversed or remanded” to the district court, said the notice. The labels acknowledge Grande filed a renewed motion for judgment and its notice of appeal will become effective once the district court resolves that motion, it said. “The same is true” for the labels’ notice of conditional cross-appeal, it said.

Pro se plaintiff James Linlor opposes McAfee’s March 3 motion for a two-week extension to March 29 to answer Linlor’s complaint alleging McAfee “cybersquatted” on the cyberguard.com internet domain for 15 years with no “bona fide” ties to Linlor’s trademarked term Cyberguard (see 2301310011), said his opposition Wednesday (docket 5:23-cv-00385]) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Diego. Linlor’s complaint contends he’s actively trying to grow his cybersecurity business, and is blocked from use of his undisputed trademark by McAfee’s “squatting” on the identically named internet domain. “No good cause exists for a delay in McAfee's time to respond” because “substantial harm” to Linlor “is occurring daily via fraudulent transfers and attempts to complicate this case,” said Linlor’s opposition.

Joshua Streit should face 51 to 60 months in prison for his piracy of sports league streaming content via his Hehestreams.com site and a related attempt to extort Major League Baseball, said DOJ in a government sentencing memo filed last week with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. That range "would be sufficient but not greater than necessary to serve the legitimate purposes of sentencing," it said in docket 22-cr-00350. Streit's attorneys argued for leniency (see 2303030017).

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra for Southern Florida in West Palm Beach set a March 22 evidentiary hearing via Zoom on plaintiff Redoak Communications’ motions for default judgment against defendants Ronin Flix and Grindhouse Video, said his signed order Thursday (docket 9:23-cv-80008). The hearing also will address Redoak’s motions for alternative service on two other defendants it hasn’t been able to serve with summonses, said the order. Independent film company Redoak’s Jan. 4 complaint alleges 14 defendants, including Amazon, Best Buy, Target and Walmart are unlawfully selling DVD and Blu-ray copies online of the 1981 horror film Just Before Dawn without a Redoak license (see 2301060023). Amazon countersued Redoak March 1, alleging that under the Supreme Court’s 2013 first-sale doctrine decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons and other case law, “once a unit of a product embodying copyrighted expression is lawfully made, it can be resold in the U.S. without requiring any further authorization from the copyright holder.”

The U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal District denied Western Digital’s mandamus petitions to vacate the Western Texas district court’s decision denying transfer of Viasat’s patent infringement claims and to transfer the case to U.S. District Court for Northern California, said its order Monday (docket 23-115). Viasat opposed the petitions. In its order denying transfer, the district court said Western Digital is headquartered in Northern California, but several of its employees who are potential witnesses work from its offices in Austin, and eight former employees who are also potential witnesses still live within the Western District of Texas, it said. The district court rejected Western Digital’s argument that the current and former employees don’t have relevant and material information, it said. The Federal Circuit’s mandamus review was limited to determining whether the denial of transfer was such a clear abuse of discretion that refusing transfer produced a patently erroneous result, said the order. The district court considered the relevant factors and found Western Digital failed to show the Northern District of California “had a clear comparative advantage with regard to the witness and sources of proof factors,” it said: “Mindful of the standard of review on mandamus, we are not prepared to disturb those findings, which, taken together with the district court’s other findings, provide a plausible basis for its judgment of discretion to deny the transfer request here.”

Recent criminal sentences by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for illegal distribution of copyrighted materials support varying from sentencing guidelines for Joshua Streit, said his counsel, Jeffrey Lichtman, in a sentencing submission last week (docket 1:22-cr-00350). Under sentencing guidelines, the St. Louis Park, Minnesota, defendant -- who was charged in 2021 with intrusions into MLB computer systems, and with illegally streaming copyrighted content from MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL -- faces 57 to 60 months imprisonment after pleading guilty in June to one charge in a plea deal, Lichtman wrote U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter, asking for leniency. He said the March 16 sentencing should take into account that Streit started his pirate streaming operation while caring for his mother who ultimately succumbed to brain cancer. With Streit being employed, "the prospects for his rehabilitation are therefore very good," he said.