Amaretto Ranch Breedables v. Ozimals Inc.
907 F. Supp. 2d 1080
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Amaretto and Ozimals are competing developers of breedable virtual animals for Second Life.
- Ozimals obtained the ‘661 Copyright’ for its bunny code and registered it; Amaretto released a competing horse product.
- Ozimals sent a DMCA takedown and Amaretto filed this copyright case seeking relief and a declaration of non-infringement.
- Two authors (Sargent, Holt) transferred some rights to Ozimals, while Distelhurst retained ownership and did not assign his rights.
- Settlement history and assignments raise questions about joint ownership and standing to sue, central to Amaretto’s and Ozimals’ claims.
- Court grants partial summary judgment on standing-based issues and declines to grant declaratory relief or copyright-misuse relief; Ozimals’ infringement counterclaim is dismissed for lack of standing; remaining claims are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue for infringement | Ozimals is an owner/joint owner of the copyright | Ozimals lacks exclusive standing to sue as a non-exclusive licensee under Sybersound | Ozimals lacks standing; summary judgment for Amaretto on infringement counterclaim |
| Declaratory judgment standing | Amaretto seeks declaration Amaretto’s horses do not infringe | Amaretto lacks real controversy and standing to seek declaration | Amaretto lacks standing; declaratory relief denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction |
| Copyright misuse claim viability | Misuse can support independent declaratory relief | Misuse claims are duplicative of declaratory relief and fail | Misuse claim dismissed as derivative of lack of standing and lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2008) (owner vs licensee standing; exclusive rights not conferred to sole owner)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (U.S. 2007) (Declaratory Judgment Act discretion; mootness vs standing},{)
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542 (9th Cir. 1989) (standing requirement for declaratory judgments)
- Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1990) (standing and mootness considerations in declaratory actions)
- Cammermeyer v. Perry, 97 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 1996) (standing and relief standards in copyright issues)
- Elec. Data Sys. Corp. v. Computer Assoc. Int’l, Inc., 802 F.Supp.1465 (N.D. Cal. 1992) (copyright misuse as standalone/declaratory relief theory)