Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Thomas Gonzales
901 F.3d 1142
| 9th Cir. | 2018Background
- Plaintiff Cobbler Nevada traced multiple unauthorized BitTorrent downloads of its film The Cobbler to a Portland IP address and sued the subscriber identified by Comcast, Thomas Gonzales.
- Cobbler Nevada first sued the IP-address John Doe, then learned Gonzales was the subscriber at an adult foster care home where residents and visitors shared the internet access.
- After communication and a deposition produced no identification of the actual device or person who performed the downloads, Cobbler Nevada amended to name Gonzales, alleging direct infringement (he copied/distributed) or, alternatively, contributory infringement (he failed to secure or police his connection despite receiving notices).
- The district court dismissed the direct claim without prejudice (insufficient facts tying Gonzales to the infringing acts) and dismissed the contributory claim with prejudice (failure to allege active inducement or material contribution), then entered judgment and awarded Gonzales attorney’s fees.
- Cobbler Nevada voluntarily dismissed a later complaint naming only the Doe IP; the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissals and the fee award, finding the subscriber-status allegations and failure-to-police theory inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct infringement: Does alleging that a defendant is the registered subscriber of an IP address used for infringement suffice to plead direct infringement? | Subscriber status + notice of infringement is enough to infer the subscriber himself copied/distributed the work. | Subscriber status alone is insufficient because multiple devices/people can use the IP; no facts show Gonzales personally infringed. | Held: Not sufficient. Bare subscriber ID and notices do not plausibly allege Gonzales personally committed the infringing acts. |
| Contributory infringement: Can failure to secure/police an internet connection after notice support contributory liability? | Failure to stop known infringement after notice makes the subscriber liable for materially contributing to or inducing infringement. | Contributory liability requires active inducement/encouragement or material contribution; mere omission or failure to police is insufficient. | Held: Not sufficient. Complaints lack allegations of active inducement or material contribution; dismissal with prejudice proper. |
| Leave to amend and judgment entry: Should the court have allowed further amendment before entering final judgment? | Plaintiff sought further amendment after dismissal. | District court argued prior amendments and futility justified denying leave. | Held: District court did not abuse discretion; further amendment would be futile. |
| Attorney’s fees: Was Gonzales entitled to fees after dismissal? | Cobbler Nevada opposed fee award. | Gonzales argued he was prevailing party and fees appropriate based on plaintiff’s unreasonable litigation conduct. | Held: Fee award affirmed; Gonzales prevailed and district court reasonably applied Fogerty factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) (plaintiff must show defendant personally violated exclusive rights to prove direct infringement)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (complaint must state a plausible, not merely possible, claim)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requires plausibility)
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005) (contributory liability requires intent to induce or clear affirmative steps to foster infringement)
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (no liability for distribution of a product capable of substantial noninfringing uses absent intent to promote infringement)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir.) (discusses two contributory-liability strands: inducement and distribution of a device lacking substantial noninfringing uses)
- Glacier Films (USA), Inc. v. Turchin, 896 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2018) (guidance on fee determinations and BitTorrent-related suits)