Amaretto Ranch Breedables, LLC v. Ozimals, Inc.
790 F. Supp. 2d 1024
| N.D. Cal. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Amaretto Ranch Breedables sues Ozimals in the ND Cal copyright context over virtual Second Life products.
- Ozimals sent a DMCA takedown to Linden alleging Amaretto’s horse product infringed its copyrights; court previously granted TRO and injunction against further takedowns.
- Parties engaged in preliminary discovery to determine copying, with both sides agreeing no literal copying but disputing nonliteral copying.
- Ozimals moves to dismiss Amaretto’s remaining claims: misrepresentation under §512(f), tortious interference, unfair competition, and copyright misuse.
- Court analyzes Rule 12(b)(6) standards, with factual posture drawn from FAC and notices, and adopts Amaretto’s favorable view for pleading purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 512(f) misrepresentation viability | Statutory purpose to deter false takedowns applies even without an actual takedown. | damages under §512(f) require an actual takedown and reliance by a service provider on the misrepresentation. | 512(f) claim dismissed with prejudice. |
| Application of the litigation privilege to pendent state claims | privilege may not bar pendent state claims in federal court. | privilege should apply to shield communications arising from litigation. | Privilege can bar pendent state claims; however, analysis shows some communications fall outside privilege and claims survive at pleadings stage. |
| Tortious interference claim viability | Defendants’ DMCA actions and public statements disrupted Amaretto’s business relations. | allegations are conclusory and do not identify specific lost contracts or negotiations. | Tortious interference claim dismissed without prejudice; fraud-based theory must be pled with particularity. |
| Unfair competition claim viability | Amaretto’s allegations show unlawful business practices by Ozimals. | (not explicitly proffered in brief) challenges insufficiency of pleading. | Unfair competition claim viable and properly pleaded. |
| Copyright misuse claim viability | Copyright misuse should be recognized as a standalone claim to bar improper uses of copyright. | misuse typically serves as a defense rather than an independent claim. | Copyright misuse claim viable as an independent claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2008) (tortious interference pleading must identify specific relationships or lost opportunities)
- Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1992) (litigation privilege governs California state claims and depends on context)
- Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205 (Cal. 1990) (privilege requires publication be connected to litigation and have a lawful objective)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (fraud-based pleadings require particularity under Rule 9)
- Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. Am. Med. Ass'n, 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997) (copyright misuse is an affirmative defense that can bar enforcement during misuse)
- Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2005) (misuse doctrine precludes enforcement contrary to public policy)