W. Knight Foster Partnership v. Saratoga Data Systems, Inc.
Filing
95
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 68 by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
W. KNIGHT FOSTER PARTNERSHIP,
9
v.
10
SARATOGA DATA SYSTEMS, INC.,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Case No. 16-cv-02406-PJH
Plaintiff,
8
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO ENFORCE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Re: Dkt. No. 68
12
13
Before the court is plaintiff W. Knight Foster Partnership’s (“WKFP”) motion for an
14
order enforcing the stipulated preliminary injunction order. The matter is fully briefed and,
15
after discussion with parties at the February 15, 2018 Case Management Conference,
16
the court vacated the hearing on the motion. Having read the parties’ papers and
17
carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause
18
appearing, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s motion.
19
20
BACKGROUND
This is a copyright infringement and breach of contract action involving “Flume”
21
software. WKFP alleges that defendant Saratoga Data Systems (“SDS”) infringes
22
WKFP’s copyright in Flume by continuing to use, sell and distribute the software despite
23
the revocation of SDS’s license. The Flume software is the only product that SDS
24
currently markets and develops. Dkt. 78 ¶¶ 6-7.
25
26
On September 9, 2016, the court entered a stipulated preliminary injunction
against SDS. As relevant here, that injunction states:
27
28
3. Furthermore, during the pendency of this litigation and until
ordered otherwise, as Defendant receives additional revenue
from Flume software, Defendant and each of its officers,
directors, owners, agents, representatives, servants,
employees, attorneys, and those persons under Defendant’s
control or in active concert or participation with Defendant are
hereby ordered to deposit into an escrow account the greater
of (a) one third of that revenue from Flume software, or (b) all
of its profits derived from that revenue from Flume software.
1
2
3
4
4. The money deposited into escrow shall not be removed or
disbursed except by Order of this Court, except to the extent
that the parties agree in a writing signed by both parties to
exclude or remove specific portions of Flume revenue from
escrow.
5
6
7
5. For purposes of this order, “profits” are to be measured as
total revenue absent sufficient proof by Defendant of proper
expenses under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b).
8
9
Dkt. 51 (the “preliminary injunction”).
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Since September 2, 2016, SDS’s only source of revenue from Flume software is a
contract with the Air Force that was entered into in the summer of 2017 (the “AF weather
Contract” or the “contract”). Dkt. 78 ¶¶ 9-14 Under that contract, SDS will receive total
13
payment of $1,288,089 for work running through approximately September 2019. Id.
14
15
¶ 11; Dkt. 78-3, Fairbank Decl., Ex. C at ECF p. 60 The contract provides for a “Software
License” of $740,000, direct labor payments of $479,779, and some expense
16
reimbursement. Dkt. 78 ¶ 11; Ex. C at 60. In late August and early September 2017,
17
SDS received payments under the contract totaling $878,288.40. Dkt. 78 ¶ 13; Ex. C at
18
60.
19
On or about October 12, 2017, SDS wired its counsel, McNamee Lochner,
20
$292,762.80. Dkt. 77, Massaroni Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; Dkt. 77-1, Ex. A. That amount was
21
deposited into a McNamee Lochner account with Key Bank. Massaroni Decl. ¶¶ 6-7;
22
Ex. A. Defense counsel attests that that account is being held in accordance with the
23
terms of the preliminary injunction. Massaroni Decl. ¶ 9. Almost three months later, after
24
25
multiple inquiries from plaintiff’s counsel, defendant provided a spreadsheet showing
defendant’s expenses associated with the Flume software. Dkt. 68-10; Massaroni Decl.
26
¶¶ 11-12.
27
On January 17, 2018, plaintiff filed the present motion claiming that defendant was
28
2
1
not in compliance with the preliminary injunction. Specifically, plaintiff claimed that (i) the
2
counsel-maintained trust account was not an “escrow” account and (ii) because plaintiff
3
did not provide a “proper” accounting of expenses, SDS should have, but did not, deposit
4
all revenue, regardless of expenses, into an escrow account.
During the February 15, 2018 Case Management Conference, the court directed
5
6
the parties to meet and confer to resolve plaintiff’s motion and inform the court by
7
February 16, 2018, whether the parties had reached a resolution. On February 16, 2018,
8
the parties informed the court that the parties had agreed that the counsel-maintained
9
trust account was an adequate escrow account. Dkt. 90. The parties, however, also
informed the court that no agreement had been reached regarding the other issues
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
raised in plaintiff’s motion. Id. With the hope they could resolve the remaining issues,
12
the parties requested that the court stay any ruling until Tuesday, February 20, 2018. Id.
On February 20, 2018, the parties notified the court that no agreement had been
13
14
reached regarding any other issues raised in plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. 92.
As the parties have reached agreement on the escrow issue, this order only
15
16
addresses the accounting issue described above.
ANALYSIS
17
18
19
A.
Legal Standard
Under the preliminary injunction, “‘profits’ are to be measured as total revenue
20
absent sufficient proof by Defendant of proper expenses under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b).” Dkt.
21
51 ¶ 5. That subsection states:
22
23
24
25
26
27
(b) Actual Damages and Profits. -- The copyright owner is
entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her
as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer
that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into
account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the
infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present
proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is
required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the
elements of profit attributable to factors other than the
copyrighted work.
28
3
1
2
B.
Analysis
With respect to the accounting issue, plaintiff argues that the deposited
3
$292,762.80 does not comply with the preliminary injunction because defendant’s
4
expense showing was untimely and does not comply with 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Therefore,
5
according to plaintiff, defendant should have deposited $878,288.40.
6
Though the court agrees that defendant’s expense showing was likely dilatory, the
7
court does not agree that the delay warrants the extreme remedies plaintiff proposes or,
8
for that matter, that any remedy is warranted under the preliminary injunction.
9
The parties’ stipulated preliminary injunction requires defendant “deposit the
greater of (a) one third of that revenue from Flume software, or (b) all of [defendant’s]
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
profits derived from that revenue from Flume software.” Dkt. 51 ¶ 3. The preliminary
12
injunction further states that “‘profits’ are to be measured as total revenue absent
13
sufficient proof by Defendant of proper expenses under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b).”
14
First, nothing in the stipulated preliminary injunction indicates when defendant
15
must submit proof of proper expenses. Accordingly, defendant did not fail to comply with
16
the preliminary injunction by failing to provide proof in a timely fashion. Relatedly, to the
17
extent plaintiff seeks the court to impose a time limit for proof of expenses, plaintiff cannot
18
do so through the present motion to enforce the preliminary injunction. The court is also
19
generally not inclined to modify stipulated preliminary injunctions.
20
Second, plaintiff has not shown that defendant’s $292,762.80 deposit fails to
21
comply with paragraphs 3 the preliminary injunction. To date, defendant has received at
22
most $878,288.40 in Flume software revenue. One-third of that amount is $292,762.80.
23
That is the exact amount defendant deposited into the escrow account.
24
Plaintiff nevertheless argues that defendant was actually required to deposit all
25
revenue from Flume software ($878,288.40) because defendant’s proof of expenses did
26
not comply with § 504(b) and defendant’s expenses were not “proper.” The court
27
disagrees.
28
With respect to the former issue, though § 504(b) might require an infringer to
4
1
comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence when proving expenses, it is at best unclear if
2
that degree of proof is required under the preliminary injunction. The preliminary
3
injunction states that “[f]or purposes of this Order, ‘profits’ are to be measured as total
4
revenue absent sufficient proof by Defendant of proper expenses under 17 U.S.C.
5
§ 504(b).” Dkt. 51 ¶ 5. Hence, paragraph 5 of the order applies only to the definition of
6
“profits,” and those expenses that can be properly deducted. Section 504(b) does not, as
7
plaintiff contends, control the adequacy of the proof of those expenses. That the word
8
“sufficient” modifies proof buttresses this conclusion. If “proof” was defined by § 504(b),
9
then “sufficient” would be superfluous.
In any event, in conjunction with its opposition, defendant submitted hundreds of
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
pages of contracts and receipts showing total expenses since September 2, 2016 of
12
$710,974 and thus total profits of $167,314.1 These exhibits would likely be admissible
13
under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and plaintiff’s reply does not contend otherwise.
14
Instead, plaintiff argues that some of the expenses, such as salaries and a sales
15
commission contract, are not “proper” because, in short, plaintiff thinks they are
16
exorbitant or unwarranted. But no provision of the preliminary injunction allows plaintiff to
17
reject defendant’s expenses because plaintiff believes the expense are imprudent or a
18
bad business decision. Nor has plaintiff cited any law suggesting the court could do so.
19
Defendant deposited $292,762.80, one-third of its Flume software-derived
20
revenue. Because that amount is greater than defendant’s Flume software-derived profit,
21
defendant is in compliance with the preliminary injunction.
CONCLUSION
22
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to enforce the preliminary injunction is
23
24
DENIED in all respects. Going forward, the parties should work together to ensure that
25
1
26
27
28
The parties debate both what constitutes “Flume software revenue” and what expenses
are properly deductible. Though the court does not decide those issues, the court’s
analysis would not change based on those various amounts. Relatedly, defendant
requested the court hold that SDS need not deposit any further revenue received under
the AF Weather Contract. That request is DENIED because it is insufficiently briefed and
likely not ripe for decision.
5
1
plaintiff receives adequate proof of expenses within a reasonable time period. If
2
necessary, parties may submit a revised stipulated preliminary injunction order for the
3
court’s review and approval.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
Dated: February 21, 2018
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
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?