Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Filmon X, LLC
968 F. Supp. 2d 134
D.D.C.2013Background
- Plaintiffs (FOX Television Stations, Inc. et al.) sued FilmOn X LLC et al. for infringing public performance rights of copyrighted TV programs.
- The court granted a preliminary injunction on Sept. 5, 2013, with a $250,000 bond and a certification duty for FilmOn X within three court days after the injunction’s effective date.
- The court held the injunction should nationwidely cover, but exclude the Second Circuit to avoid conflict with WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc. (Aereo II).
- Bond was posted Sept. 9, 2013, making FilmOn X’s compliance certification due by Sept. 12, 2013.
- FilmOn X moved for stay and reconsideration on Sept. 11, 2013; plaintiffs opposed.
- The court denied the emergency motions, reaffirming that the public benefits favor enjoining infringement and that FilmOn X’s arguments did not show changed circumstances or reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stay pending appeal: should the injunction stay be granted | Plaintiffs argue stay would harm public interest and that injunction should remain in place | FilmOn X contends there is likelihood of reversal due to Aereo II conflict and irreparable harm without a stay | Stay denied; injunction remains in force |
| Reconsideration scope and legal standards | FilmOn X argues for altered scope across circuits and reconsideration of facts | FilmOn X claims changed circumstances or errors warrant modification or reconsideration | Reconsideration denied; no intervening change or manifest injustice found |
| Bond amount per circuit | Bond should reflect broader circuit coverage or higher amount | $250,000 suffices to protect against potential wrongful injunction | Bond amount maintained at $250,000 per the court’s assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuomo v. NRC, 772 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (stay factors identical to preliminary injunction analysis)
- WMATA v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (four-factor stay framework cited)
- BarryDriller Content Systems, PLC, 915 F. Supp. 2d 1138 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (relevance to injunction scope and Aereo II context)
- DSE, Inc. v. United States, 169 F.3d 21 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (broad discretion on injunction bond appropriateness under Rule 65(c))
- Fox Television Sys., Inc. v. BarryDriller Content Sys., PLC, 389 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (standard for reconsideration and finality implications)