Regional Multiple Listing Service of Minnesota, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc., 960 F. Supp. 2d 958

RMLS sues AHRN for copyright infringement and seeks contempt for alleged violations of a Sept. 27, 2012 preliminary injunction.
The injunction extended to current and future RMLS copyrighted works and prohibited unauthorized copying, display, or distribution.
AHRN allegedly displayed 77 photographs from NorthstarMLS in NeighborCity between Oct. 16–23, 2012, some of which were claimed by RMLS to be copyrighted; ownership and assignments are contested.
RMLS claims co-ownership of the 77 photographs via photographers who assigned interests to brokers who in turn assigned to RMLS; AHRN argues it had permission from certain brokers to display some photos.
AHRN asserted agreements with RE/MAX and Keller Williams allegedly authorizing display; the RE/MAX signatory disputed by its vice president.
RMLS moves to dismiss AHRN’s counterclaims (Sherman Act and related state claims); the court denies dismissal and proceeds to sanctions and injunctive modification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Contempt for displaying copyrighted photos	RMLS proves ownership and unauthorized display	AHRN claims authorized use or lack of clear authorization	Contempt found for Twin Oaks and Countryside photos; partial ownership unclear for RE/MAX/Keller Williams
Whether AHRN’s conduct violated the injunction as to all photographed works	AHRN displayed copyrighted works in violation	Authorization may exist for some works; scope of injunction questioned	Injunction violations found for Twin Oaks and Countryside; potential authorization issues unresolved for others
Whether Cardella can be held in contempt	Cardella abetted or is identifiable with AHRN’s conduct	Insufficient evidence of abetment or identification	AHRN held in contempt; Cardella not held in contempt at this stage
Whether AHRN’s Sherman Act counterclaim survives	Noerr-Pennington does not bar sham petitioning and conspiracy allegations	Activities may be protected; no sham allegation established	Sherman Act counterclaim survives preliminary scrutiny; Noerr-Pennington issues considered but not dispositive at this stage
Whether MDPTA counterclaim survives	MDPTA disparagement claim supported by false statements	Disparagement claims inadequately pleaded with particularity	MDPTA claim survives and not dismissed

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (parallel conduct must be pled with a suggesting of agreement; bare assertions insufficient)
Noerr-Pennington doctrine, 365 U.S. 167? (Supreme Court (context)) (petitioning activities generally immunized; sham exception requires objective baselessness and improper motive)
Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1984) (conscious commitment to a common scheme may prove conspiracy)
In re IBP Confidential Bus. Documents Litig., 755 F.2d 1300 (8th Cir. 1985) (courts consider petitioning-related activities under Noerr-Pennington)
United States v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1994) (civil contempt remedial and compensatory; standard clarified)
Northwest Wholesale Stationers v. Pacific Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1985) (group boycott per se rule in certain contexts)
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (twombly pleading standard for antitrust conspiracy)
Primetime 21 Joint Venture v. NBC, 219 F.3d 92 (2d Cir. 2000) (illustrates sham petitioning and Noerr-Pennington)
Anderson News, L.L.C. v. American Media, Inc., 680 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2012) (pleading standards for conspiracy and agreement)