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)

Download PDF
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?