Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions and defendant Giuseppe Cammarata, owner of the Tavern & Table establishment in Hainesport, New Jersey, have reached a settlement of the claims in their dispute and agree to dismiss the case with prejudice, said their joint stipulation of dismissal Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-00308) in U.S. District Court for New Jersey in Camden. The parties further stipulate that each shall be responsible for bearing their own expenses, costs of litigation and attorneys’ fees, it said. Joe Hand held the exclusive commercial licensing rights to the pay-per-view broadcasts of two Ultimate Fighting Championship matches in January and February 2021. Its Jan. 18 complaint alleged that Cammarata and his restaurant “willfully intercepted” those broadcasts through an unauthorized satellite transmission or unauthorized receipt over a cable system. They then “unlawfully transmitted, divulged and published” those broadcasts to patrons in the establishment, it said. The defendants pirated the licensed exhibitions of the programs and infringed on Joe Hand’s exclusive rights “while avoiding proper authorization and payment” to Joe Hand, alleged the complaint.

An individual defendant, or a business entity of “unknown makeup” whose identity is redacted, is engaging in the online sale of counterfeit and unauthorized Beatles-branded products, alleged Beatles trademark owner Apple Corps in an infringement complaint Tuesday (docket 0:24-cv-60669) in U.S. District Court for Southern Florida in Fort Lauderdale. The defendant misappropriates the Beatles band members’ “likeness” by advertising and selling goods using that likeness without Apple Corps’ authorization, alleged the complaint. The Beatles enjoy worldwide “notoriety and fame,” it said. As a result, the band members’ likenesses “are widely recognized, giving them substantial monetary value in the marketplace,” it said. The Beatles “have a substantial global and intergenerational fan base,” it said. The defendant is conducting and targeting its counterfeiting, infringing and misappropriating activities toward consumers and causing harm throughout the U.S., it said. It’s defrauding Apple Corps and the consuming public for its own benefit, it said. The defendant’s wrongful conduct “is likely to create a false impression and deceive consumers into believing there is a connection or association” between Apple Corps’ “genuine goods” and the defendant’s counterfeit goods, “which there is not,” it said. The same attorney, Stephen Gaffigan, sued on behalf of Apple Corps last year to stop multiple defendants from trafficking in “counterfeits and confusingly similar imitations” of Beatles goods over the internet (see 2304270048).

BMI and six major music publishers reached a settlement with Solace Outpost, a brewery-restaurant in Falls Church, Virginia, and its owner, Ian Hilton, to resolve copyright infringement allegations that musical compositions in the BMI repertoire were performed publicly there without a license (see 2311200002), said the plaintiffs’ status report Friday (docket 1:23-cv-01572) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in Alexandria. Under the terms of that settlement agreement, the plaintiffs will file a voluntary stipulation of dismissal once the payments made under the agreement have cleared, which the plaintiffs believe will be by April 30, said the report. The complaint alleged four claims of willful copyright infringement against Hilton and the establishment.

The 14 author plaintiffs in the copyright infringement suit against OpenAI in the Northern District of California are appealing a district court's April 1 denial of their motion to intervene in the four New York actions against Microsoft and OpenAI for the purpose of transferring, staying or dismissing those actions (see 2404020001), said their notice of appeal Friday (docket 1:24-cv-00084). The California plaintiffs wrongly claim an interest in avoiding contradictory rulings between the New York and California actions and that those contradictory rulings would impair their interests, said the order from Judge Sidney Stein for Southern New York. But the “substantial differences” between the California and New York actions “lessen any risk of contradictory rulings,” it said.

In light of settlement talks that appear to be “ongoing” between BMI and Maggie’s Bar & Grill in Jackson, New Jersey (see 2403070027), U.S. Magistrate Judge Tonianne Bongiovanni for New Jersey in Trenton ordered the parties to submit an additional status update regarding those talks by May 10, said her text order Wednesday (docket 3:23-cv-03135). BMI contacted the restaurant’s managers more than 80 times since October 2019 about the necessity of “purchasing a license for the public performance of musical compositions in the BMI repertoire,” said the June 7 complaint from BMI and five music publishers (see 2306080044). They allege six claims of willful copyright infringement against the establishment, based on its “unauthorized public performance of musical compositions.”

Altice and the 54 record labels and music publishers suing the ISP for contributory copyright infringement (see 2312080050) have agreed on former U.S. Magistrate Judge Suzanne Segal of Signature Resolution in Los Angeles as their mediator, said their joint notice Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-00576) 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 labels and publishers allege that Altice has knowingly contributed to, and reaped “substantial profits” from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its internet subscribers. Altice has been fending off similar allegations from BMG and its affiliates in the same courthouse in a case that dates to December 2022 (see 2212150019). The parties in the BMG case against Altice picked Segal as their mediator last year (see 2303170034).

The New York Times Co. seeks a status conference to discuss the case schedule in its AI copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI, said the company’s letter Tuesday (docket 1:23-cv-11195) to U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein for Southern New York in Manhattan. Microsoft and OpenAI don’t oppose the request, it said. The Times proposes that its case follow the schedule to which the defendants stipulated in the three consolidated authors’ complaints, said the letter. Microsoft and OpenAI object to applying that schedule, but they each submitted different counterproposals, it said: “Given the variety of options presented to the Court, a status conference will help resolve the parties’ disputes over the schedule. Setting a schedule will also help all parties efficiently plan for discovery, which is already underway.” The Times alleges that generative AI tools from Microsoft and OpenAI rely on large-language models that were built by copying and using millions of the paper's copyrighted news articles, in violation of the Copyright Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other statutes (see 2312270044).

The 54 record labels and music publishers that brought contributory copyright infringement allegations against Altice (see 2312080050) have designated Matthew Oppenheim of Oppenheim + Zebrak as lead counsel on behalf of all the plaintiffs, said the plaintiffs’ notice Tuesday (docket 2:23-cv-00576) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Marshall. The labels and publishers allege that Altice has knowingly contributed to, and reaped “substantial profits” from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its internet subscribers. Altice has been fending off similar allegations from BMG and its affiliates in the same courthouse in a case that dates to December 2022 (see 2212150019).

The four dozen record labels and music publishers in the contributory copyright infringement appeal brought by Cox Communications agree with Cox that a stay of the mandate pending the 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court’s resolution of Cox’s Rule 60(b) appeal (see 2403260027) is “appropriate,” said their response Friday (docket 21-1168). But the labels and publishers oppose the stay pending resolution of Cox’s cert petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, it said. Cox’s Rule 60(b) appeal lacks merit “and will be disposed of in due course,” but the labels and publishers “nevertheless agree that judicial economy would be best served” by the 4th Circuit “resolving all of Cox’s challenges to the underlying trial and then remanding for a retrial on damages,” it said. The labels and publishers oppose Cox’s separate request for a stay pending cert because such a a stay is warranted only where the petition will present a substantial question and that there’s good cause for a stay, it said. Cox’s good cause arguments are “overblown,” and the labels and publishers don’t concede “that such cause exists to stay the mandate pending the resolution of Cox’s cert petition,” it said. In light of Cox’s failure to identify any substantial question for Supreme Court review, a stay pending the resolution of Cox’s cert petition is “inappropriate,” it said.

Cox Communications is asking the 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court to stay the issuance of its mandate in Cox’s contributory copyright infringement appeal pending the resolution of further appellate proceedings in the 4th Circuit and in the U.S. Supreme Court, said its motion Monday (docket 21-1168). A 4th Circuit panel last month affirmed a district court jury’s finding of willful contributory copyright infringement against Cox for the piracy actions of some of its 6 million internet customers, but it reversed the jury’s vicarious liability verdict, and remanded the case to U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia for a new trial on damages (see 2402210027). A stay of the mandate is warranted on “two independent grounds,” said Cox’s motion. The 4th Circuit hasn’t yet resolved all of Cox’s challenges to the initial judgment from which Cox appealed, it said. Still pending in the 4th Circuit is Cox’s appeal from the denial of its motions for relief from that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), it said. If the 4th Circuit issues the mandate and the district court proceeds with litigation on damages, “it would not only risk unnecessary or piecemeal litigation” but also impede the 4th Circuit’s ability “to fully resolve the challenges to the judgment,” it said. The 4th Circuit should stay the mandate “to avoid that harm,” it said. A stay also is warranted pending Cox’s cert petition to the Supreme Court, said its motion. This case presents “two exceptionally important questions” on which the 4th Circuit’s rulings “depart from those of other circuits,” it said. The first is whether an internet service provider materially contributes to copyright infringement by declining to disconnect an internet account knowing someone is likely to use it to infringe, it said. On that question, the panel’s decision “creates a three-way circuit split and raises substantial questions implicated by recent Supreme Court law,” it said. The second question is whether a secondary infringer can be adjudged willful based merely on knowledge of another’s direct infringement, it said. The 4th Circuit’s law, settled before the panel decision, conflicts with 8th Circuit law and “bedrock willfulness principles,” it said. If the mandate issues and the district court purports to exercise jurisdiction over further proceedings, Cox would be “irreparably deprived of its opportunity to obtain full and fair appellate review of the initial liability judgment before being subjected to damages proceedings in the district court,” it said. The district court “would be proceeding in parallel with retrial proceedings that purport to settle Cox’s rights and obligations on damages issues, while two appellate courts evaluate whether liability is appropriate in the first instance,” it said.