293 F. Supp. 3d 963
N.D. Cal.2018Background
- Rearden LLC and Rearden Mova LLC (Rearden) sue major studios (Disney, Fox, Paramount) alleging use of the MOVA Contour facial motion‑capture system and its outputs in blockbuster films without authorization; suits consolidated and motions to dismiss filed.
- MOVA Contour captures actors' facial performances and produces 3D output files (Captured Surface and Tracking Mesh) used to retarget performances onto CG characters.
- Rearden previously litigated ownership of the MOVA assets; this Court earlier found Rearden owned the MOVA assets in related litigation between Rearden and DD3‑associated parties.
- Defendants moved to dismiss claims for copyright, patent (direct and inducement), and trademark infringement; Court took judicial notice of multiple media exhibits cited in the complaints.
- Court found Rearden plausibly alleged inducement of patent infringement by Disney (denying dismissal of §271(b) claims), but dismissed copyright claims and Disney direct‑infringement (§271(a)) patent claims without prejudice.
- Several trademark claims survived at this stage (credits, featurettes, promotional uses), while specific trademark allegations tied to the Beauty and the Beast featurette/credits and certain Facebook content were dismissed (some with prejudice where plaintiff conceded error).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright: whether MOVA program copyright extends to its output files | MOVA does the lion's share of work creating outputs; therefore Rearden owns copyright in outputs | Actors/directors substantially contribute expressive content; user input is not marginal | Dismissed: Rearden failed to plausibly allege the program "did the lion's share" of the creativity; copyright claims dismissed without prejudice |
| Patent — Direct infringement (§271(a)) by studios | Studios "used" or "controlled" MOVA (via contracts with DD3) and thus directly infringed | Contracting for services does not equal using or controlling a system as a whole; not a divided‑infringement situation | Dismissed without prejudice: plaintiff did not plausibly allege single‑entity direct infringement |
| Patent — Inducement (§271(b)) against Disney | Disney knew or was willfully blind to Rearden's patent rights (due diligence, demand letter, prior negotiations) and contracted with DD3, thus intentionally induced infringement | Disney disputes knowledge/intent and disputes alleged factual basis for awareness | Denied: allegations suffice at pleading stage to plausibly infer Disney knew of patents and intended to induce DD3's infringing use |
| Trademark infringement (use of MOVA mark in credits/featurettes/promos) | Studios used "MOVA" in film credits, featurettes, press/promotional materials causing likely consumer confusion and false endorsement | Uses are nominative fair use (referring to technology, not implying endorsement) or not actual use of the mark | Mixed: many nominative fair use defenses premature; several trademark claims survive; limited allegations (certain featurettes, credits, Facebook content) dismissed (some without prejudice; some with prejudice where conceded) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (application of Twombly plausibility at pleading stage)
- Design Data Corp. v. Unigate Enter., Inc., 847 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussion whether program copyright may extend to outputs)
- Torah Soft Ltd. v. Drosnin, 136 F. Supp. 2d 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (program must do the "lion's share" of creative work for output protection)
- Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (divided infringement; when one entity is attributable for all method steps)
- Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc., 631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (what it means to "use" a system for §271(a))
- Glob.-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754 (knowledge/willful blindness required for induced patent infringement)
- In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323 (pleading standard for induced infringement claims)