Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Kornrumpf
Filing
231
ORDER REGARDING THE CALCULATION OF STATUTORY DAMAGES AND CONFIRMING TRIAL DATE. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/15/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2012)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,
5
6
7
8
Plaintiff,
v.
HOOPS ENTERPRISE LLC; and ANTHONY
KORNRUMPF,
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
11
12
ORDER REGARDING
THE CALCULATION OF
STATUTORY DAMAGES
AND CONFIRMING
TRIAL DATE
Defendants.
9
10
No. C 10-2769 CW
________________________________/
AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS
________________________________/
At the final pretrial conference on June 6, 2012, Defendants
13
Hoops Enterprise, LLC and Anthony Kornrumpf raised an issue of how
14
statutory damages for copyright infringement will be assessed in
15
this case.
16
copyrighted software that Plaintiff Adobe Systems Incorporated
17
alleges that they distributed constitute a compilation under 17
18
U.S.C. § 504, and that one award of statutory damages should be
19
made for each compilation distributed, and not for each work.
20
parties had not previously raised this issue before this Court.
21
The Court directed Defendants to file a short brief on the issue
22
by June 8, 2012 by noon and Adobe to file a response by June 11,
23
2012 by noon.
24
Specifically, Defendants argued that certain
The
Docket No. 219.
On June 11, 2012, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation
25
to extend the briefing schedule on this issue.
26
Under the extended briefing schedule, Defendants’ brief was due by
27
28
Docket No. 223.
1
5:00 p.m. on June 12, 2012, and Adobe’s brief was due by 5:00 p.m.
2
on June 14, 2012.
3
While Adobe filed its required brief on June 14, 2012 before
4
5:00 p.m., Defendants have failed a brief on this issue.
5
Apparently, they have abandoned their argument that the software
6
titles constitute a compilation and statutory damages should be
7
assessed once for each software compilation, instead of once for
8
each work.
9
The trial date in this matter is maintained before this Court
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
for the week of June 18, 2012.
11
trial.
12
hours’ notice.
13
The trial will trail a criminal
The parties must be ready to begin trial on twenty-four
Alternatively, the parties may consent to the jurisdiction of
14
a magistrate judge for trial.
15
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley is available to begin
16
trial in this matter on a date certain the week of Monday, June
17
18, 2012.
18
attached form.
19
Should the parties so consent,
Parties may indicate their consent by filing the
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated: 6/15/2012
22
23
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
CC:JCS
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
No. C 10-2769 CW
Plaintiff,
CONSENT TO PROCEED
BEFORE A UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
v.
HOOPS ENTERPRISE LLC; and ANTHONY
KORNRUMPF,
Defendants.
________________________________/
AND ALL RELATED CLAIMS
________________________________/
12
13
CONSENT TO PROCEED BEFORE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
In accordance with the provisions of Title 28, U.S.C. Section
15
636(c), the undersigned party hereby voluntarily consents to have
16
United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley conduct any
17
and all further proceedings in the case, including trial, and
18
order the entry of a final judgment.
19
shall be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for
20
the Ninth Circuit.
Appeal from the judgment
21
22
Dated: _________________________
_______________________________
Signature
23
Counsel for ___________________
(Plaintiff or Defendants)
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?