Jonathan Browning, Inc. -v- Venetian Casino Resort, LLC

Filing 216

ORDER of Tentative Ruling and Questions re 175 MOTION to Amend/Correct 122 Amended Complaint, 157 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 165 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on August 6, 2009. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JONATHAN BROWNING, INC., Plaintiff, v. VENETIAN CASINO RESORT LLC, ET AL., Defendants. / NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS No. C 07-03983 JSW

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON AUGUST 7, 2009 AT 9:00 A.M.: The Court has reviewed the parties' papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court's questions contained herein.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3. 2. 1.

The Court tentatively DENIES Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and tentatively GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court tentatively DENIES Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions: The record demonstrates that Plaintiff was granted a copyright in the Calais sconce. What is the Defendants' position on the difference between that sconce design and the two at issue in this litigation regarding their conceptual separability? Should the Court determine that the two sconces at issue here are not entitled to copyright protection, can Plaintiff proceed on the counts for unfair competition? If so, on what basis? Does Plaintiff have any authority to support the contention that a U.S. defendant is liable for infringement if it causes infringing copies to be made abroad for importation and sale within the United States? Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

4.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 6, 2009 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE