§Why CasetextPricing

ALS Scan, Inc. v. Cloudflare, Inc. et al

MEMORANDUM in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Third Amended Complaint against Cloudflare Inc. 324

21 Cited authorities

  1. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.

    545 U.S. 913 (2005)   Cited 811 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable”

  2. Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana

    336 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 999 times
    Holding that the deprivation of rights secured by the Contract Clause may “give rise to a cause of action under section 1983” and that Carter “is not to the contrary”

  3. Ellison v. Robertson

    357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 669 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the district court erred in concluding on summary judgment that [the ISP] satisfied the requirements of § 512" because the record showed that the ISP "allowed notices of potential copyright infringement to fall into a vacuum and to go unheeded," indicating it "had not reasonably implemented its policy against repeat infringers"

  4. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

    487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 494 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an online image search index was "highly transformative"

  5. Perfect 10 v. Visa Intern

    494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 259 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court may "affirm on any ground supported by the record"

  6. Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions

    658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 156 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court did not err "by narrowing the instruction on material contribution to the only genuine question as to that element"

  7. Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc.

    76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 236 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that operators of a swap meet who had reason to know of infringing activity after law enforcement officers raided the flea market and seized counterfeit merchandise may be held liable for contributory trademark infringement

  8. Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd.

    762 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 133 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial limited to damages when the jury's instructions on damages "likely fostered confusion among jurors"

  9. Gershwin Pub. Corp. v. Columbia Artists Man

    443 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir. 1971)   Cited 430 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a defendant may "be held liable as a 'contributory' infringer if it were shown to have had knowledge, or reason to know, of the infringing nature of the records"

  10. Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-line Communication Services, Inc.

    907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995)   Cited 200 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that operator of a computer bulletin board system that forwarded messages from subscribers to other subscribers was not liable for displaying copyrighted works because it took no role in controlling the content of the information but only acted as passive conduit of the information

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 338,431 times   161 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 23,660 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Providing for service via CM/ECF Systems

  13. Section 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

    17 U.S.C. § 106   Cited 3,945 times   111 Legal Analyses
    Granting the owners of copyrights in “literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works” the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publicly”

  14. Section 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online

    17 U.S.C. § 512   Cited 625 times   187 Legal Analyses
    Denying the safe harbor if the service provider receives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"

  15. Section 201.38 - Designation of agent to receive notification of claimed infringement

    37 C.F.R. § 201.38   Cited 4 times   14 Legal Analyses

    (a)General. This section prescribes the rules pursuant to which service providers may designate agents to receive notifications of claimed infringement pursuant to section 512 of title 17 of the United States Code. Any service provider seeking to comply with section 512(c)(2) of the statute must: (1) Designate an agent by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, the service provider and designated