649 F. App'x 181
3rd Cir.2016Background
- Pro se author Joseph Carlin self-published four books and contracted with CreateSpace/Amazon under a services agreement granting Amazon a nonexclusive license to publish, distribute, and sell the books (including via “expanded distribution”).
- Carlin alleged Amazon sold copies through Amazon or third-party distributors without paying royalties and sued Amazon and Jeffrey Bezos for copyright infringement, seeking $100 million.
- After discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment; the District Court granted Amazon’s motion and denied Carlin’s, finding insufficient evidence that Amazon exceeded its license or withheld royalties.
- Carlin appealed; the Third Circuit reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo and affirms the District Court’s judgment.
- Evidence presented by Carlin consisted primarily of Amazon.com screenshots showing multiple “offers” for his books; Amazon produced evidence that those were offers to sell (not completed sales) and that it had sold and paid royalties on 16 copies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amazon exceeded the nonexclusive license such that copyright infringement occurred | Carlin: Amazon and third-party distributors sold copies without paying royalties (screenshots of multiple “offers” = sales) | Amazon: The screenshots show offers to sell, not completed sales; Amazon paid royalties on sales it completed | Held for Amazon — screenshots show only offers; no admissible evidence of unpaid sales sufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether failure to pay required royalties can constitute infringement | Carlin: Nonpayment reflects use beyond license scope | Amazon: Even if nonpayment could be infringement, plaintiff must prove sales occurred that required payment | Held: Court assumed nonpayment could be infringement but found no proof of unpaid sales here |
| Sufficiency of speculative evidence to survive summary judgment | Carlin: Inference from offers and distribution channels supports claim | Amazon: Speculation insufficient; summary judgment requires concrete record evidence | Held for Amazon — speculation/inference alone cannot defeat summary judgment |
| Whether District Court’s interlocutory orders or other arguments waived on appeal | Carlin: (argued broadly) | Amazon: Issues not briefed are waived; District Court orders unchallenged | Held: Court will address only issues Carlin properly briefed; other orders not reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Pro Design, P.C., 566 F.3d 86 (3d Cir.) (standard of plenary review on appeal)
- Dun & Bradstreet Software Servs., Inc. v. Grace Consulting, Inc., 307 F.3d 197 (3d Cir.) (elements of copyright infringement claim)
- MacLean Assocs., Inc. v. Wm. M. Mercer-Meidinger-Hansen, Inc., 952 F.2d 769 (3d Cir.) (licensee exceeds scope rule for nonexclusive licenses)
- I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768 (7th Cir.) (scope-of-license principles)
- MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc., 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir.) (assumption that failure to make contractually required payments can implicate infringement)
- Kaucher v. Cty. of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418 (3d Cir.) (summary judgment standards regarding evidentiary showing)
- Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273 (3d Cir.) (speculation insufficient to create material factual dispute)
- Berckeley Inv. Grp., Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195 (3d Cir.) ("put up or shut up" requirement for non-moving party at summary judgment)