The court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Abdullah v. United States Security Associates, Inc., 731 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013), and held that although it would present individual questions, Walmart had “not demonstrated that such individualized inquiries will predominate over the common legal question presented by Plaintiff’s meal period premium claim.”
In the case of the DVR user, there can be no doubt that the DVR user alone decided to copy the copyrighted work. In the case of the Ubiquiti employee, it was almost certainly not an individual employee who made the decision to use Synopsys’ software, and he or she may have been wholly unaware that it was being used (not to mention that it was being used without authorization from Synopsis).
An owner of a copyright who transfers exclusive rights may still have standing to sue on those rights if the owner qualifies as a “beneficial owner” of those rights.
(323) 318-7771 IntroductionA new case from the Ninth Circuit illustrates that policy arguments cannot overcome the express language of a copyright license, and the difficult in asserting a copyright misuse ...
The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff should have been given leave to amend to state with more specificity the similarities between the two works, and to plead facts that could describe a plausible chain of events linking the King Solomon treatment to defendants.