The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court's denial of a preliminary injunction against Gogo in a patent infringement suit. In a docket 23-1058 decision Wednesday by Judges Raymond Chen, Todd Hughes and Tiffany Cunningham, and penned by Cunningham, the panel said plaintiff-appellant SmartSky Networks didn't meet the burden of establishing irreparable harm if not given an injunction stopping Gogo from selling its 5G aviation connectivity service. SmartSky said the decision "was based solely on the issue of irreparable harm and did not address any of SmartSky’s patent infringement claims at this preliminary stage of the case." It said a preliminary injunction would have been "an extraordinary measure" and they are rarely granted. It said it was "compelled to seek such extraordinary relief given Gogo’s egregious infringement."

Pearl Groups, which operates FishTails Restaurant and Bar in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and Rutvi Patel, a restaurant manager, infringed BMI's musical compositions, alleged BMI's complaint Tuesday (docket 2:24-cv-00073) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia in Norfolk. Additional plaintiffs are Arc Music, Mic Shau Music, Irving Music and Sony/ATV Songs. BMI reached out to the defendants over 50 times since December 2022 by phone, email and mail about their obligations under the Copyright Act regarding a required license to publicly play recordings in the BMI repertoire, said the complaint. Letters included cease-and-desist notices that defendants must “immediately cease all use of BMI-licensed music” in the restaurant, it said, saying their infringement is causing plaintiffs “incalculable damage.” Plaintiffs allege four claims of willful copyright infringement. it said. Plaintiffs seek orders enjoining defendants from infringing their copyrighted musical compositions, to pay statutory damages and to pay a reasonable attorney’s fee, plus court costs, it said.

Amazon breached its duty to a confidential settlement agreement it reached with photographer Barry Rosen regarding future copyright infringement, alleged Rosen's copyright complaint Monday (docket 2:24-cv-00771) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. The settlement agreement outlined Rosen’s and Amazon’s responsibilities in “Specialized Notice and Takedown Procedure Prior to Filing Suit,” said the complaint. Rosen followed the procedure “to the best of his ability,” but Amazon failed to abide by its responsibilities, it said. The Los Angeles resident has never licensed Amazon to use his photographs for any purpose, nor has he granted any entity or individual rights to sell physical or digital copies of the photographs in question on Amazon websites, it said. Amazon “intentionally allowed, provided material assistance, or otherwise induced sellers” to post infringing copies of Rosen's copyrighted works on its e-commerce platform to “advertise, market and promote business activities, and/or to sell infringing products predominantly consisting of posters for profit,” the complaint said. Though Rosen notified Amazon of the infringing activities of its users through a series of Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices, Amazon “failed to remove infringements” from its websites or servers and failed to terminate users, where appropriate, “despite red-flag knowledge of repeated or ongoing infringing activities,” it said. Among the seller accounts using Rosen’s photographs were JP The Brick, FC Carino, Warm Keepers, Posh LJ, Shine On and Geary Stop, the complaint said. Many of the accounts were “repeat infringers” with “dozens of infringements.” Amazon “failed to terminate the user accounts or to maintain a proper DMCA termination policy,” it said. Amazon should have had reason to know that the sellers of infringing posters reported by Rosen were “fake accounts and/or directly related to two separate identifiable infringers located in California who are likely either all the same people or are otherwise working together,” it said.

The plaintiffs in two consolidated authors’ complaints for copyright infringement against Microsoft and OpenAI agree with the defendants in proposing Feb. 28, 2025, as the date for completing summary judgment briefing in their litigation, said their joint letter Friday (docket 1:23-cv-08292) to U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein for Southern New York in Manhattan. But the parties are at an “impasse” over proposing a deadline for the “substantial production” of documents for discovery requests submitted before Jan. 31, with the plaintiffs proposing May 10 and the defendants proposing Aug. 31, said the letter. The plaintiffs deem the May 10 deadline “reasonable” because it gives OpenAI, which was first served Nov. 13 with document requests, more than six months to respond, and Microsoft, which was served Jan. 24, more than four months, said the letter. The defendants believe that the plaintiffs’ document requests “potentially implicate large collections of data” that can’t “feasibly be copied for production, and the parties will need to negotiate the means of handling such data,” said the letter. Following the adoption of the discovery “protocol,” the defendants “will still have to search for, collect, review, and produce documents,” it said. “Each of these steps takes time,” and the defendants believe the plaintiffs’ proposed May 10 deadline “ignores these realities,” it said. The plaintiffs think the court’s intervention “to set a firm, and quick, timetable” for initial document production “is especially warranted here because the discovery process already reflects indicia of delay,” said the letter. According to the plaintiffs, OpenAI has refused “categorically” to produce documents “already collected and turned over to legislative bodies and regulatory agencies,” said the letter. Those include materials “obviously relevant to the copyright claims at issue,” like those turned over to the Copyright Office or the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, it said. The plaintiffs contend that of the documents that OpenAI has agreed to produce, OpenAI will produce them only after the entry of a protective order in this case, said the letter. But the plaintiffs sent OpenAI a draft protective order more than a month ago, and it has “yet to respond,” it said. According to the plaintiffs, the delay has “held hostage all document productions in the case,” it said. The plaintiffs believe that “a quick timetable for production is warranted to put an end to these delays,” it said. The plaintiff authors in the two lawsuits allege that Microsoft and OpenAI copied their protected works on a mass scale without consent or compensation, then fed those copyrighted works into their large language models to train their AI algorithms (see 2401120005).

Plaintiff Global Weather Productions (GWP) sued Reuters, alleging the media company showed “discernible segments” of videos it owns without permission or authorization, said its complaint Wednesday (docket 1:24-cv-00507) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. Brandon Clement first published a series of blizzard videos striking Western New York on Nov. 18, 2022; the five videos were registered by the U.S. Copyright Office from Jan. 30 to Feb. 8, the complaint said. Clement created the videos with the intention they would be used commercially and for public distribution of a “newsworthy weather event,” it said. GWP acquired all rights in and to the videos by way of written assignment, the complaint said. Reuters displayed various segments of the videos on its website on Dec. 27, 2022, it said, and “broadly disseminated” the videos to various third parties, and it "authorized the use of same in further violation” of GWP’s copyrights, it said. On Oct. 9, the plaintiff’s counsel sent Reuters a letter to address copyright infringement complaints about the videos, but Reuters “continues to infringe” on GWP’s videos, “thereby establishing the willful nature of its conduct,” the complaint said. GWP asserts claims of direct copyright infringement and seeks an award of actual damages and disgorgement of all of Reuters’ profits attributable to the infringements, plus attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest, the complaint said.

The parties in two authors’ complaints for copyright infringement against Microsoft and OpenAI consent that the plaintiffs will file a consolidated class action complaint by Friday, and that Microsoft and OpenAI will respond to that complaint by Feb. 9, said their joint stipulation Monday (docket 1:23-cv-08292) in U.S. District Court for Southern New York in Manhattan. The parties also agree to submit proposed schedules by Friday for fact discovery, expert discovery and the briefing of summary judgment, said the stipulation. The plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and Microsoft copied the rights owners’ protected works to train their large language models as generative AI tools, and did so without compensating the rights owners or seeking their consent (see 2401030003).

BMI and 19 music publishers allege that a Bryan, Texas, bar and grill and its owner publicly perform musical compositions in BMI’s repertoire without a license or authorization, said their complaint Thursday (docket 4:24-cv-00199) in U.S. District Court for Southern Texas in Houston. BMI has reached out to Yesterdays and its owner, Jason Seymour, more than 50 times since April 2019 by phone, mail and email in an effort to educate them about their obligations under the Copyright Act and the necessity of “purchasing a license for the public performance of musical compositions in the BMI repertoire,” said the complaint. The plaintiffs allege nine claims of willful copyright infringement.

BMI and eight music publishers seek an entry of default judgment against a Louisville, Ohio, tavern and its owner that permanently bars them from infringing BMI-licensed copyrighted musical compositions and orders them to pay nearly $18,000 in statutory damages with interest, plus $5,200 in attorneys’ fees and court costs, said their motion Friday (docket 5:23-cv-01889) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Ohio in Akron. BMI “repeatedly informed” Whiskey Stop Bar & Grill in Louisville, Ohio, and owner Scott Kelly between October 2021 and August 2023 “of the need to obtain permission for public performances of copyrighted music,” said BMI’s memorandum in support of the default judgment. BMI offered to enter into a blanket license agreement with them, but they didn’t do so, it said. BMI and the music publishers alleged six claims of willful copyright infringement against the defendants (see 2309290002).

U.S. District Judge John Tharp for Northern Illinois in Chicago granted Hytera Communications’ motion to file under seal its motion to dismiss the government’s criminal indictment for failure to present evidence of trade secrets to the grand jury (see 2401120014), said a docket entry notification Friday (docket 1:20-cr-00688). The government’s response to Hytera’s motion to dismiss is due Jan. 26, said the notification. A grand jury in May 2021 returned indictments listing 22 counts of trade secret theft against the company 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.

Hytera Communications seeks an order allowing it to file under seal its motion to dismiss the government’s criminal indictment for failure to present evidence of trade secrets to the grand jury. Hytera filed its motion Thursday (docket 1:20-cr-00688) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. A grand jury in May 2021 returned indictments listing 22 counts of trade secret theft against the company 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. Hytera’s motion to dismiss contains citations to and excerpts of transcripts of the secret grand jury proceedings held in fall 2020 and spring 2021, plus grand jury exhibits that have been designated as sealed under the court’s Feb. 28 protective order, said the motion to file under seal. Under that protective order, five business days after service of unredacted copies of the motion to dismiss, Hytera will file the redacted papers publicly, unless it receives an application in opposition from another party within those five business days, it said.