Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 686 F. App'x 422

Unicolors sued Urban Outfitters and Century 21 (collectively “Urban”) for copyright infringement of a fabric design; district court granted summary judgment for Unicolors on infringement and a jury found willful infringement after trial.
Urban appealed, challenging the district court’s summary-judgment analysis, admissibility of certain evidence, exclusion of defenses, and trial rulings.
The district court relied on authenticated comparison exhibits (Exhibits 3 and 5), not an unauthenticated Exhibit 1, in finding substantial similarity.
The court excluded evidence of Unicolors’s prior copyright lawsuits as prejudicial under Rule 403 and barred Urban from admitting Jonathan Rho’s deposition under Rule 804(a)(5)(A) because Urban did not use reasonable means to secure his attendance.
The district court declined to give a jury instruction on estoppel (an equitable defense for the court) and admitted ambiguous testimony about Urban’s expert’s prior retention; any error in admitting that testimony was deemed harmless given other evidence of willfulness.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Urban’s challenges to evidentiary rulings, the refusal to instruct on estoppel, and the harmlessness argument regarding the expert testimony; appellants were ordered to bear appeal costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court rely on inadmissible Exhibit 1 for summary judgment?	Unicolors argued the court relied on authenticated exhibits showing similarity.	Urban argued the court relied on counsel-prepared, unauthenticated Exhibit 1.	Court relied on Exhibits 3 and 5; Urban’s contention was incorrect.
Was evidence of Unicolors’s prior lawsuits admissible to support unclean hands?	Unicolors argued such evidence was prejudicial and low probative value.	Urban argued prior suits showed a pattern (conspiracy/copyright trap).	Excluded under Rule 403; probative value too low and speculative, exclusion not an abuse of discretion.
Was Jonathan Rho’s deposition admissible under Rule 804(a)(5)(A)?	Unicolors contended Urban failed to show Rho was unavailable and didn’t use reasonable means to obtain him.	Urban sought admission as an unavailable declarant.	Excluded: Urban did not reasonably attempt to procure attendance; district court’s ruling affirmed.
Should the jury have been instructed on estoppel?	Unicolors maintained estoppel is an equitable issue for the court.	Urban sought a jury instruction on estoppel.	Instruction properly refused; estoppel is for the court and a jury instruction would be misleading/superfluous.

Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion)
D’Lil v. Best W. Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (courts scrutinize attempts to use past litigation to bar valid claims)
Barboza v. New Form, Inc. (In re Barboza), 545 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2008) (willfulness can be based on reckless behavior)
Copper v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 945 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir. 1991) (distinguishes prejudicial errors requiring reversal from harmless errors)
Granite State Ins. Co. v. Smart Modular Techs., Inc., 76 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 1996) (estoppel is an equitable defense to be decided by the court)