Luvdarts, LLC v. AT & T Mobility, LLC
710 F.3d 1068
9th Cir.2013Background
- Luvdarts and Davis-Reuss sue mobile carriers (Carriers) over MMS networks used to transmit multimedia content.
- Luvdarts sells greeting-card style MMS content and campaigns that recipients can forward without technical restriction.
- Luvdarts alleges infringement occurs when users share purchased content without permission.
- Luvdarts sent notices to Carriers seeking accountability; Carriers allegedly did not act.
- District court dismissed all infringement claims with prejudice; state-law UCL claim waived; appeal follows.
- Affirmed: Luvdarts failed to plead vicarious or contributory liability; no further adjudication on direct infringement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vicarious liability for infringement on networks | Luvdarts argues Carriers can supervise infringing use | Carriers lack the right/ability to supervise current activity | No vicarious liability given lack of supervisory capacity |
| Contributory liability for infringement | Carriers knew of infringement and induced or contributed | No specific knowledge; notices vague; no willful blindness | No contributory liability due to lack of specific knowledge |
Key Cases Cited
- Napster, Inc. v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (defined vicarious/contributory doctrines; right to supervise and knowledge standards)
- Grokster, Ltd. v. MGM Studios, 545 U.S. 913 (S. Ct. 2005) (inducement/knowledge; substantial noninfringing use; system design impact)
- Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (U.S. 1984) (contributory infringement requires knowledge and facilitation; noninfringing use defense)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) (distinguishes vicarious vs contributory liability; supervisory capacity not shown by mere potentiality)
- In re Aimster Copyright Litig., 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003) (willful blindness not established by mere indifference to infringement)
- United States v. Heredia, 483 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2007) (distinguishes willful blindness from recklessness; requires deliberate actions to avoid learning of infringement)
- Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (S. Ct. 2011) (willful blindness as knowledge in patent context; analogous standard discussed for knowledge)