Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant challenged the district court's judgment in a copyright infringement suit concerning alleged indirect profits derived from the sale of time-share condominiums. The district court had classified the appellant's claim as one for indirect profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), as no direct profits from the sale of the infringing videotape were claimed. The appellant was unable to provide non-speculative evidence that the infringement caused the profits he claimed, leading to summary judgment in favor of the appellee, who presented direct evidence countering the influence of the promotional video on sales. Additionally, the appellant contested the jury's finding of non-infringement on certain videos but failed to preserve this issue for appeal due to procedural shortcomings, specifically not moving for judgment as a matter of law. Upon review, the court found no plain error in the jury's verdict, affirming the district court's decision. The disposition is governed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, which restricts its publication and citation in future cases.
Legal Issues Addressed
Burden of Proof for Indirect Profits Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Lynch failed to provide non-speculative evidence that the infringement caused the profits claimed, resulting in summary judgment for Trendwest.
Reasoning: Lynch was required to provide evidence that the infringement at least partially caused the profits claimed. However, he failed to present sufficient non-speculative evidence to support his indirect profits claim; instead, Trendwest provided direct evidence indicating no additional sales were influenced by the promotional video.
Classification of Profits under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court classified Lynch's claim as seeking indirect profits due to the lack of a direct claim for profits from the sale of the infringing product.
Reasoning: The district court correctly classified Lynch's claim as seeking indirect profits rather than direct profits, as Lynch did not claim a portion of the profits from the direct sale of the infringing videotape, but rather profits generated from the sale of time-share condominiums.
Non-Publication and Citation Limitation under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The decision is not for publication and cannot be cited in future cases, adhering to Ninth Circuit procedural rules.
Reasoning: The court’s decision is affirmed, and the disposition is not for publication nor can it be cited in future cases, per Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plain Error Review Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no plain error in the jury's verdict, affirming the district court's decision as reasonable and not affecting Lynch's substantial rights.
Reasoning: The court reviewed this for plain error and found none, determining that the jury's verdict was reasonable and did not adversely affect Lynch's substantial rights.
Preservation of Issues for Appellate Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Lynch did not preserve his challenge to the jury's non-infringement finding for appellate review by failing to move for judgment as a matter of law.
Reasoning: Lynch also challenged the jury's finding of non-infringement regarding Trendwest's use of certain videos but did not preserve this issue for appellate review, as he failed to move for judgment as a matter of law at the appropriate times.