Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01637/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01637-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

1

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT ALEXANDER KASEBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONACO, LLC; TURNER 

BROADCASTING SYSTEM; TIME 

WARNER, INC.; CONAN O’BRIEN; 

JEFF ROSS; MIKE SWEENEY; DOES 

1–10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

ORDER (1) GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS, 

AND (2) DISMISSING 

DEFENDANTS’ NINTH AND 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

(ECF Nos. 165, 167)

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Robert Alexander Kaseberg’s Motion for 

Judgment on the Pleadings and/or Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendants’ Fraud on 

the Copyright Office and Unclean Hands Affirmative Defenses (“Mot.,” ECF No. 167). 

Also before the Court are Defendants’ Opposition to (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 169) and 

Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of (“Reply,” ECF No. 171) the Motion. The Court vacated 

oral argument on the Motion and took the matter under submission without oral argument. 

ECF No. 170. After considering the Parties’ arguments and the law, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s Motion.

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of

 18
2

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BACKGROUND

On July 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants for copyright 

infringement, alleging that Defendants featured on the Conan show jokes authored by 

Plaintiff without Plaintiff’s consent. See generally ECF No. 1. Plaintiff alleged that 

“copyright registration [wa]s being sought” for each of the jokes at issue. Id. ¶ 26. The 

operative First Amended Complaint, filed October 3, 2016, see generally ECF No. 58, 

contains an identical allegation. See id. ¶ 29.

Only one of the five jokes in Plaintiff’s Complaint is at issue for purposes of this 

Motion: the “Tom Brady joke.” Mr. Lorenzo filed an application on Plaintiff’s behalf to 

register the Tom Brady joke in September 2015 (the “September 2015 Application”).

1

 Am. 

Ans., ECF No. 165, ¶ 49; see also Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion 

(“RJN”), ECF No. 167-3, Ex D.

2

 

On March 24, 2016, Defendant Conaco served discovery requests on Plaintiff, 

requesting all documents relating to Plaintiff’s efforts to register the jokes and “all facts 

relating to YOUR ownership of the copyrights related to the JOKES AT ISSUE.” Am.

Ans. ¶¶ 52–53. Although Plaintiff agreed to produce all documents relating to his 

registration efforts, he did not produce registration certificates for the Tom Brady joke. Id.

¶ 52. Further, Plaintiff’s interrogatory response, signed by Mr. Lorenzo, represented that 

Plaintiff “has registered copyrights for the jokes created.” Id. ¶ 53.

 

1 Although the public catalog provides a date of September 11, 2015, see RJN Ex. C, the parties refer to a 

September 3, 2015 application. See, e.g., Mot. at 13; Opp’n at 9. The precise date of the application is 

not material to the determination of this Motion.

2 The Court may take judicial notice of the printouts from the copyright catalog provided by Plaintiff. See, 

e.g., Idema v. Dreamworks, Inc., 90 F. App’x 496, 498 (9th Cir. 2003), as amended on denial of 

reh’g (Mar. 9, 2004) (“[A] copyright registration . . . is the sort as to which judicial notice is appropriate.”) 

(citing Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2)); see also Brooks-Ngwenya v. Indianapolis Pub. Sch., 564 F.3d 804, 808 

(7th Cir. 2009) (citing Island Software & Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 261 (2d 

Cir. 2005)). The Court may consider matters subject to judicial notice without converting the motion into 

one for summary adjudication. See Harris v. Cnty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 

Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001)).

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of

 18
3

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Office initially refused registration for the September 2015 Application on 

July 20, 2016, stating that there was not the requisite minimum amount of original 

authorship. Id. ¶ 49; see also Declaration of Jayson M. Lorenzo in Support of Plaintiff’s 

Motion (“Lorenzo Decl.”), ECF No. 167-4, ¶ 3 & Ex. 2.3

 Shortly thereafter, on August 10, 

2016, Mr. Lorenzo filed a second application on Plaintiff’s behalf, this time seeking 

registration of multiple works published on February 2, 2015, including the previously 

rejected Tom Brady joke (the “August 2016 Application”). Am. Ans. ¶ 50; see also RJN 

Ex. C. Mr. Lorenzo did not disclose to the Office the July 20, 2016 refusal of the Tom 

Brady joke. Am. Ans. ¶ 50; see also Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Material Facts in 

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion (“Pl.’s Resp.”), ECF No. 171-2, ¶ 8.

On October 19, 2016, Mr. Lorenzo filed a First Request for Reconsideration of the 

July 20, 2016 refusal for the September 2015 Application with the Office, which again 

refused registration on the basis of originality in March 2017. Am. Ans. ¶ 51; see also 

Lorenzo Decl. Ex. 2.

On February 3, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, partial 

summary judgment, or summary adjudication. Am. Ans. ¶ 55; see also ECF No. 70. In 

their motion, Defendants argued, among other things, that Plaintiff “failed to produce any 

evidence proving that he registered the Tom Brady” joke and that Plaintiff’s “monologuestyle jokes are . . . only entitled to thin copyright protection.” See ECF No. 70-1 at 8–9, 

13–15; see also Am. Ans. ¶ 55. 

Plaintiff’s opposition, filed February 24, 2017, appended copies of the 

September 2015 and August 2016 Applications. See ECF No. 97-2 Ex. 8; see also Am. 

 

3 In addition to the pleadings and matters of judicial notice, the Court also may consider documents 

incorporated by reference in the pleadings without converting the Motion into one for summary 

adjudication. See Shame On You Prods., Inc. v. Banks, 893 F.3d 661, 668 n.2 (9th Cir. 2018). A document 

is incorporated by reference if its “authenticity is not contested and the complaint relies on” it. Spy Optic, 

Inc. v. Alibaba.Com, Inc., 163 F. Supp. 3d 755, 764 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Lee, 250 F.3d at 688). The 

Court concludes that it properly may consider Exhibits 2 and 3 to the Lorenzo Declaration because their 

authenticity is not contested and they are integral to Defendants’ ninth and tenth affirmative defenses.

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of

 18
4

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ans. ¶ 56. The registrations for the Tom Brady joke were not produced to Defendants until 

after Defendants had filed their motion for summary judgment, Am. Ans. ¶ 56; see also 

Pl.’s Resp. ¶ 9, and the correspondence with the Office was not produced until May 2017. 

Am. Ans. ¶ 56; see also Pl.’s Resp. ¶ 10. The Court therefore ordered the parties to submit 

supplemental briefing as to whether Plaintiff’s failure timely to disclose the applications 

should be outcome-determinative. Am. Ans. ¶ 57; see also ECF Nos. 122, 126, 127.

On May 12, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment. Am. Ans. ¶ 58; see also ECF No. 131. As to the registrations, the 

Court determined that Plaintiff’s failure timely to disclose them to Defendants should not 

be outcome-determinative because “reopening discovery and permitting a late-filed 

dispositive motion—if warranted—sufficiently neutralizes any potential prejudice 

Defendants may have suffered.” ECF No. 131 at 8–10. As to “the amount of protection 

Plaintiff’s works should be afforded,” id. at 18, the Court wrote that, “[i]n the present case, 

there is little doubt that the jokes at issue merit copyright protection.” Id. at 21 (citing Feist

Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991); Bleistein v. Donaldson 

Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239, 251 (1903)). Ultimately, however, the Court 

“conclude[d] that Plaintiff’s jokes are entitled to only ‘thin’ copyright protection.” Id. 

On May 30, 2017, Mr. Lorenzo filed a Second Request for Reconsideration of the 

September 2015 Application, noting that “[t]he basis for this second reconsideration is that 

the Court ruled at Summary Judgment on May 9, 2017, that ‘there is little doubt that the 

jokes at issue merit copyright protection.’” Am. Ans. ¶ 60; see also Lorenzo Decl. Ex. 2

(quoting ECF No. 131 at 21:7–13). He concluded the letter by noting that, “[i]n light of 

the Court’s that [sic] [his] client’s material has met the originality requirements for 

copyright protection, and the previous joke registrations, [his] client respectfully requests 

that the work . . . be allowed to register.” Id. A full copy of the Court’s May 12, 2017 

Order was attached as Exhibit A to the letter. See Lorenzo Decl. Ex. 2.

The Office registered the August 2016 Application—including the Tom Brady 

joke—in June 2017. Am. Ans. ¶ 62. As for the September 2015 Application, by letter 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of

 18
5

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

dated July 17, 2017, the Review Board of the Office (the “Board”) found on de novo review 

that the Tom Brady joke “exhibit[ed] copyrightable authorship and thus may be registered.” 

Lorenzo Decl. Ex. 3; see also Am. Ans. ¶ 63. The letter explained that “[t]he Board base[d] 

its finding on the ‘minimal degree of creativity’ required by the U.S. Supreme Court in 

Feist,” and that “[c]ourts and the Copyright Office both have found copyright protection 

for jokes when the jokes are sufficiently creative.” Lorenzo Decl. Ex. 3 (citing Foxworthy 

v. Custom Tees, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 1200, 1219 (N.D. Ga. 1995)). The Board “caution[ed] 

that . . . the copyright in the Work is ‘thin,’” and “note[d] its decision is consistent with a 

decision in the Southern District of California, finding that this work merits thin copyright 

protection.” Id. (citing ECF No. 131 at 21).

The letter also addressed the August 2016 Application, explaining that, “[b]ecause 

previously registered material, including material that has been submitted for registration 

but has not been registered yet, is unclaimable in subsequent registrations, the registration 

for Three Jokes Work must be corrected to exclude the content covered in the registration 

for” the Tom Brady joke. Id.; see also Am. Ans. ¶ 64. The letter noted that on July 5, 

2017, John R. Riley, an Attorney-Advisor with the Office, had contacted Mr. Lorenzo and

that Mr. Lorenzo “agreed that, if the Board granted registration of [the Tom Brady joke], 

the registration record for Three Jokes Work would need to be corrected to exclude the text 

comprising the single [Tom Brady] joke.” Lorenzo Decl. Ex. 3.

On November 11, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file an amended 

answer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint “to include the affirmative defenses of 

(1) fraud on the Copyright Office and (2) unclean hands, in light of Plaintiff[’s] . . . and his 

counsel’s misconduct before the Copyright Office and this Court.” ECF No. 154-1 at 1. 

The Court granted the motion on April 13, 2018, see generally ECF No. 164, finding that 

justice required granting the motion and that Plaintiff could file a “dispositive motion 

regarding the affirmative defenses, if Plaintiff deems one is appropriate.” Id. at 6.

Defendants filed their amended answer on April 18, 2018, see generally ECF No. 

165, adding a Ninth Affirmative Defense for Fraud on the Copyright Office, see id. ¶¶ 45–

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of

 18
6

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

68, and a Tenth Affirmative Defense for Unclean Hands. See id. ¶¶ 69–78. The instant 

Motion followed on May 9, 2018. See generally ECF No. 167.

LEGAL STANDARD

Any party may move for judgment on the pleadings “[a]fter the pleadings are 

closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). A motion for judgment 

on the pleadings attacks the legal sufficiency of the claims alleged in the complaint. See

Patel v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills, 259 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 2001). The 

Court must construe “all material allegations of the non-moving party as contained in the 

pleadings as true, and [construe] the pleadings in the light most favorable to the [nonmoving] party.” Doyle v. Raley’s Inc., 158 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 1998). “Judgment 

on the pleadings is proper when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the 

pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 

F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990). 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are generally liberal with respect to pleading, 

instructing courts that “[p]leadings must be construed so as to do justice.” Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 8(e); see also Mut. Creamery Ins. Co. v. Iowa Nat. Mut. Ins. Co., 427 F.2d 

504, 507–08 (8th Cir. 1970) (“It is settled law that pleadings must be construed liberally in

order to prevent errors in draftsmanship or the like from barring justice to litigants. Such 

pleadings must be construed favorably to the pleader and judged by substance rather than 

form.”); Lomartira v. Am. Auto. Ins. Co., 245 F. Supp. 124, 129 (D. Conn. 1965), aff’d 371 

F.2d 550 (2d Cir. 1967) (“[C]ases should be decided upon their merits, rather than upon 

technical deficiencies in the pleadings.”). Further, the Court observes “the ‘strong policy 

favoring a trial on the merits.’” See Genentech, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 122 F.3d 

1409, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Defendants’ ninth affirmative 

defense of fraud on the Copyright Office and tenth affirmative defense of unclean hands. 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of

 18
7

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. Ninth Affirmative Defense: Fraud on the Copyright Office

“[N]o civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall 

be instituted until . . . registration of the copyright claim has been made.” 17 U.S.C.

§ 411(a) (“Section 411”); see also Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 157 

(2010) (a copyright holder must register its copyright in a work with the United States 

Copyright Office before filing suit for infringement). “A certificate of registration satisfies 

the requirements of [Section 411(a),] regardless of whether the certificate contains any 

inaccurate information, unless—(A) the inaccurate information was included on the 

application for copyright registration with knowledge that it was inaccurate; and [¶] (B) the 

inaccuracy of the information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to 

refuse registration.” 17 U.S.C. §§ 411(b)(1)(A) & (B).

4 “As with all allegations of fraud, 

claims of fraud on the Copyright Office must be pled with particularity pursuant to the 

requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Metro. Reg’l Info. 

Sys., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 2d 538, 558 (D. Md. 2013).

Defendants have alleged that Plaintiff knowingly committed fraud on the copyright 

office through the following acts:

a. [Plaintiff] failed to disclose to the Copyright Office the 

July 20, 2016 rejection of the [September 2015 

A]pplication with the [August 2016 Application];

b. [Plaintiff] failed to disclose to the Copyright Office the 

March 23, 2017 second refusal of the [September 2015 

Application] until after Defendants informed [Plaintiff]’s 

counsel of their intent to assert a Fraud on the Copyright 

 

4 The Court notes that, “[i]n any case in which inaccurate information described under [Sections 

411(b)(1)(A) & (B)] is alleged, the court shall request the Register of Copyrights to advise the court 

whether the inaccurate information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse 

registration.” 17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(2). But “[b]efore asking the Register whether she would have refused 

to register a copyright . . . a court should feel free to determine whether there is in fact a misstatement of 

fact.” DeliverMed Holdings, LLC v. Schaltenbrand, 734 F.3d 616, 625 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Response 

of the Register of Copyrights to Request Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(2) at 12, Olem Shoe Corp. v. 

Wash. Shoe Co., No. 1:09-cv-23494 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2010). Consequently, should the Court determine 

that there is no misstatement of fact, it need not refer the issues of materiality or reliance to the Register.

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of

 18
8

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Office affirmative defense because of this material 

omission; . . .

c. [Plaintiff] failed to disclose to the Copyright Office, at any 

point, the prior publication of the Tom Brady Joke on 

Twitter before its subsequent publication with two other 

jokes on [Plaintiff]’s blog claimed on the [August 2016 

Application]; and

d. [Plaintiff] mischaracterized the holding in the Court’s 

May 12, 2017 summary judgment order in correspondence 

to the Copyright Office, omitted key facts and details 

which led the Review Board to issue the registration.

Am. Ans. ¶ 65; see also id. ¶ 66. 

Plaintiff argues that he is entitled to judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, 

partial summary judgment because (1) his correspondence with the Office was not 

“information . . . included on the application for copyright registration” as required under 

Section 411(b),” see Mot. at 6–7; (2) he did not give “inaccurate information” to the Office 

or intend to defraud the Office because the Court’s May 12, 2017 Order was attached to 

the second reconsideration letter, see id. at 7–8, and the copyrightability of the Tom Brady 

joke was an issue adjudicated by the Court, see id. at 8–11; and (3) any alleged inaccuracies 

concerning the August 2016 Application are “irrelevant” because the registration that 

issued for the August 2016 Application “no longer contains any Tom Brady information.”5

 

Id. at 12–14. The Court addresses each of Plaintiff’s arguments in turn.

A. Inaccuracies in Subsequent Correspondence

Plaintiff first argues that, although “it is [not] appropriate to commit fraud during a 

reconsideration or appeal, . . . the law [of the defense of fraud on the Copyright Office is 

such] that [the alleged inaccuracies] must be on the application.” Reply at 4. Plaintiff 

 

5 Plaintiff also argues that any alleged inaccuracies in the September 2015 application were not material 

because it is clear from the Board’s letter that it had read the Order and “nowhere d[id it] state [it was] 

‘relying on’ or ‘following’ . . . the Court’s decision.” See Mot. at 11–12. This Court cannot resolve the 

issue of the materiality of the alleged inaccuracies because that is an issue for the Register. See 

17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(2); see also supra note 4.

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of

 18
9

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

purports to base this argument on the plain language of section 411(b)(1)(A), which 

provides that “[a] certificate of registration satisfies the requirements of this section and 

section 412 regardless of whether the certificate contains any inaccurate information, 

unless . . . the inaccurate information was included on the application for copyright 

registration with knowledge that it was inaccurate.” See, e.g., Mot. at 4–5 (quoting 17 

U.S.C. § 411(b)(1)(A)) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff claims that this language would 

necessarily exclude “arguments made in a reconsideration/appeal related to a valid 

copyright application that contains no inaccuracies or indicia of fraud.” Id. at 5. 

The Court is not persuaded that fraud on the Copyright Office encompasses only 

statements contained in the application form itself, and not those contained in subsequent 

registration materials, including requests for reconsideration and other correspondence 

with the Office. Section 409 of the Copyright Act specifies that “[t]he application for 

copyright registration . . . shall include . . . any other information regarded by the Register 

of Copyrights as bearing upon . . . the existence, ownership, or duration of the copyright.” 

17 U.S.C. § 409(10). Correspondence with the Register seeking reconsideration of a 

refusal of registration would appear to fit within the plain language of this definition. As 

explained in the Code of Federal Regulations, “[a] request for reconsideration must include 

the reasons the applicant believes registration was improperly refused, including any legal 

arguments in support of those reasons and any supplementary information.” 37 C.F.R. 

§§ 202.5(b)(1), (c)(1). Importantly, the Office (in the case of a first reconsideration) or the 

Board (in the case of a second) “will base its decision on the applicant’s written 

submissions.” Id. (emphasis added). A request for reconsideration is therefore “other 

information regarded by the Register of Copyrights as bearing upon . . . the existence . . . 

of the copyright.” See 17 U.S.C. § 409(10).

This conclusion is bolstered by the statutory scheme for the registration process. The 

Register issues a registration only “[w]hen, after examination, the Register of Copyrights 

determines that, in accordance with the provisions of this title, the material deposited 

constitutes copyrightable subject matter and that the other legal and formal requirements 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of

 18
10

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of this title have been met.” 17 U.S.C. § 410(a). “This examination process often involves 

a dialogue between the Copyright Office and the applicant.” Brief for the United States as 

Amicus Curiae, Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, No. 17-571, 

2018 WL 2264108, at *3 (U.S. May 16, 2018). “For example, an examiner may ‘discover[] 

that the applicant failed to provide sufficient information in a particular field or space of 

the application or elsewhere in the registration materials, or [that] the applicant otherwise 

failed to meet the registration requirements.’” Id. (quoting Compendium § 605.3(B)). “In 

the course of such correspondence, an owner can clarify the scope of his application or 

may withdraw or otherwise abandon his claim.” Id. (citing Compendium §§ 605.3(B), 

605.7, 605.9).

Such a conclusion is also borne out by the legislative history. According to Nimmer, 

“[t]he legislative history for the PRO IP Act explains that the amendment aims to close the 

loophole whereby ‘intellectual property thieves’ argue ‘that a mistake in the registration 

documents, such as checking the wrong box on the registration form, renders a registration 

invalid and thus forecloses the availability of statutory damages.’” 2 Nimmer on Copyright 

§ 7.20 (2018). It would appear that Congress intended fraud on the Copyright Office to 

encompass more than just the application form itself, but also the additional registration 

materials. See, e.g., Copyright Registration Practice § 4:25 (2018) (explaining that “the 

application, the deposit copy(ies), the filing fee, all other material that has been submitted 

to the Office, and all communications between the applicant and the Office relating to the 

registration of the claim . . . are collectively known as the ‘registration materials’”) 

(footnote omitted).

Further, to conclude that the reconsideration requests were not part of the 

“application” for registration for purposes of fraud on the Copyright Office would subvert 

the policies underlying the defense. As Defendants note, see Opp’n at 13 (citing 2 Howard 

B. Abrams, Law of Copyright § 16:11 (2017); Campinha-Bacote v. Rearden, No. 3:10-

CV-00139-JDR, 2011 WL 1343343, at *3 (D. Alaska Apr. 8, 2011)), one of the 

justifications of the fraud on the Copyright Office defense is that “there is a duty of candor 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 18
11

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

when communicating with the Copyright Office.” Another is that “the official public 

record of claims to copyright is full and accurate.” Opp’n at 13 (citing U.S. Copyright 

Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 602.1 (3d ed. 2017)). Allowing 

an applicant to lie with impunity in subsequent registration materials so long as she is 

candid in the application form itself would defeat these policies and eviscerate the defense.

Finally, Plaintiff’s cases do not stand for the proposition that “a misstatement [must] 

be made in the application for registration.” See Reply at 3. Plaintiff cannot extrapolate 

from cases in which the defense was predicated on misstatements made in the application 

form that the defense can only be predicated on misstatement made in the application form. 

See, e.g., Mot. at 5 (“Plaintiff has been unable to locate any authority supporting 

Defendants[’] claim that there can be fraud on the copyright office related to argument 

made in a reconsideration/appeal.”). The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiff is not 

entitled to judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the alleged inaccuracies were 

communicated to the Office outside of the application form. See, e.g., 

SellPoolSuppliesOnline.com LLC v. Ugly Pools Ariz. Inc., No. CV-15-01856-PHX-BSB, 

2017 WL 6420464, at *12 (D. Ariz. June 9, 2017) (alleged inaccuracies in email and 

affidavit sent to Office after submitting application), reconsideration denied, 2017 WL 

6415370 (D. Ariz. July 11, 2017).

B. Inaccuracies Concerning the September 2015 Application

Having concluded that Defendants’ defense may be predicated upon alleged 

inaccuracies in the reconsideration letters, see supra Section I.A, the Court turns to the 

alleged inaccuracies concerning the September 2015 Application. Defendants’ allegations 

are predicated on Plaintiff’s “mischaracteriz[ation of] the holding in the Court’s May 12, 

2017 summary judgment order in correspondence to the Copyright Office, [and] omi[ssion 

of] key facts and details which led the Review Board to issue the registration.” Am. Ans. 

¶ 65(d). In particular, Defendants allege that, in his second reconsideration request, 

Plaintiff “falsely stat[ed] that ‘[t]he basis for this second reconsideration is that the Court 

ruled at Summary Judgment on May 9, 2017, that “there is little doubt that the jokes at 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 18
12

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

issue merit copyright protection,”’ and that, “[i]n light of the Court’s [sic] that my client’s 

material has met the originality requirement for copyright protection, and the previous joke 

registrations, my client respectfully requests that the work listed above be allowed to 

register,” id. ¶ 60, whereas “the Court’s summary judgment order made no such 

determination.” Id.

The issue therefore is whether the Court “ruled” that the Tom Brady joke merited 

copyright protection, as Plaintiff claims and represented to the Office, or whether these 

statements were “dicta,” as Defendants contend, rendering Plaintiff’s representation 

inaccurate. Some would say that “no satisfactory definition [for ‘holding’] has yet to 

emerge.” Michael Abramowicz & Maxwell Stearns, Defining Dicta, 57 Stan. L. Rev. 953, 

958 (2005). Messrs. Abramowicz and Stearns suggest that “[a] holding consists of those 

propositions along the chosen decisional path or paths of reasoning that (1) are actually 

decided, (2) are based upon the facts of the case, and (3) lead to the judgment. If not 

a holding, a proposition stated in a case counts as dicta.” Id. at 1065; see also Opp’n at 6. 

Ultimately, the Court agrees with Plaintiff: “There can be no [ruling as to] ‘thin’ or 

‘broad’ protection . . . unless [the Court first] reach[es] the threshold issue of whether the 

material merits copyright protection.” Reply at 10. Here, the level of copyright protection 

to which Plaintiff’s jokes are entitled was clearly before the Court, with Defendants arguing 

in their motion for summary judgment that, “to the extent that Kaseberg’s jokes are entitled 

to any copyright protection, such protection is ‘thin.’” ECF No. 70-1 at 15. The Court

agreed with Defendants, “conclud[ing] that Plaintiff’s joke are entitled to only ‘thin’ 

copyright protection.” ECF No. 131 at 21. A necessary intermediate conclusion was that 

“the jokes at issue merit copyright protection.” See id. (citing Feist, 499 U.S. at 345; 

Bleistein, 188 U.S. at 251). Implied in this finding, and in the parenthetical to the citation 

to Feist, was the conclusion that the jokes met the originality requirements for 

copyrightability.

Consequently, Plaintiff’s counsel did not mischaracterize dicta in the Court’s 

May 12, 2017 Order as a holding or ruling. Could Plaintiff’s counsel have been more 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 18
13

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

forthright with the Office by clarifying in his letter that the Court concluded that the jokes 

were entitled only to thin protection? Certainly. Should Plaintiff’s counsel have included 

that in his letter? Perhaps. 

Even if omission of the Court’s ultimate conclusion that the jokes were entitled only 

to thin copyright protection were misleading, however, the Court would have to conclude 

that there was no intent to defraud here. It is undisputed that Plaintiff’s counsel attached a 

copy of the Court’s full Order to the letter to the Office. See Lorenzo Decl. Ex. 2, ECF 

No. 167-4 at 10–51. Had Plaintiff been attempting to pull a fast one on the Office by 

misrepresenting the Court’s Order, he would not have provided the Office with a means of 

verifying that deception. Defendants’ affirmative defense for Fraud on the Copyright 

Office therefore fails to the extent it is predicated upon the alleged inaccuracies concerning 

the September 2015 Application.

C. Inaccuracies Concerning the August 2016 Application

Regarding the August 2016 Application, Defendants claim that Plaintiff failed to 

disclose: (1) the July 20, 2016 rejection of the September 2015 Application; (2) the 

March 23, 2017 second refusal of the September 2015 Application; or (3) the prior 

publication of the Tom Brady joke on Twitter. See Am. Ans. ¶ 65(a)–(c). 

Plaintiff counters that the registration that issued on the August 2016 Application 

“no longer contains any Tom Brady information,” and therefore Defendants “are 

attempting to invalidate and/or render unenforceable a registration that has nothing to do 

with this case.” Mot. at 13. “Further, any allegation of intent to defraud related to this 

application has no merit” because “[t]here is no dispute that Plaintiff’s counsel spoke to 

Ted Hirakawa of the Copyright Office in August 2015, [at which time Plaintiff’s counsel] 

was advised a single application and collective work application could be submitted for the 

same joke.” Id. (citing Lorenzo Decl. ¶ 7). And “on April 21, 2017, . . . Plaintiff sent a 

letter to the copyright office advising the Copyright Office of the pending lawsuit, the 

application history of the Tom Brady joke, as well as the collective work application filed 

on August 10, 2016.” Id. (citing Lorenzo Decl. ¶ 8 & Ex. 6).

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 18
14

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In their Opposition, Defendants do not argue that this conduct amounts to fraud on 

the Copyright Office, but rather that these “other instances of inequitable conduct by 

Kaseberg . . . before the Copyright Office” support their affirmative defense of unclean 

hands. See Opp’n at 9. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the Court therefore considers 

Defendants to have abandoned their affirmative defense of fraud on the Copyright Office 

to the extent it is predicated upon any of the alleged inaccuracies concerning the August 

2016 Application. See Jenkins v. Cnty. of Riverside, 398 F.3d 1093, 1095 n.4 (9th Cir. 

2005) (dismissing causes of action as abandoned where plaintiff did not oppose dismissal 

in her opposition); Shull v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 13-CV-2999 BEN (WVG), 

2014 WL 1404877, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2014) (“Where a party fails to address

arguments against a claim raised in a motion to dismiss, the claims are abandoned and 

dismissal is appropriate.”); see also Walsh v. Nev. Dep’t of Human Res., 471 F.3d 1033, 

1037 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that the plaintiff forfeited her right to raise an issue on appeal 

because her opposition to a motion to dismiss failed to suggest a continuing interest in 

pursuing the claim and therefore “effectively abandoned” it). 

In any event, the Court concludes that the alleged inaccuracies concerning the 

August 2016 Application do not arise to fraud on the Copyright Office. The alleged 

inaccuracies Defendants have identified in the August 2016 Application are in the form of 

omissions. It is true that intentional, material omissions may support a defense of fraud on 

the Copyright Office, see, e.g., Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 759 F. Supp. 

1444, 1454 (N.D. Cal.) (quoting Eckes v. Card Prices Update, 736 F.2d 859 (2d Cir.

1984)), on reconsideration, 779 F. Supp. 133 (N.D. Cal. 1991), aff’d, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th 

Cir. 1994); however, Defendants have failed to identify, and the Court has not found, any 

authority imposing on Plaintiff a duty to disclose to the Copyright Office the prior 

publication of the Tom Brady joke on Twitter or the prior refusals of the September 2015 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 18
15

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Application.6 See, e.g., Andren v. Alere, Inc., 207 F. Supp. 3d 1133, 1141 (S.D. Cal. 2016)

(“In order to state a claim of fraudulent omissions under the UCL/FAL, CLRA, or as a 

claim of common law fraud, a plaintiff must allege facts either showing that the 

alleged omissions are ‘contrary to a representation actually made by the defendant, or 

showing an omission of a fact the defendant was obliged to disclose.’”).

It is clear that Plaintiff is under no obligation to disclose everything related to the 

Tom Brady joke to the Office. For example, Plaintiff is required to include, among other 

things, “the year in which creation of the work was completed” and, “if the work has been 

published, the date and nation of its first publication.” See 17 U.S.C. §§ 409(7)–(8). 

Plaintiff is not required, however, to provide the geographical coordinates for where he 

composed the work, what he ate for breakfast that morning, or what color underwear he 

was wearing at the time, see generally 17 U.S.C. § 409, unless that is “information regarded 

by the Register of Copyrights as bearing upon the preparation or identification of the work 

or the existence, ownership, or duration of the copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 409(10). As with 

the September 2015 Application, see supra Section I.B, it is possible that Plaintiff’s 

counsel could have been more forthcoming with the Office by taking it upon himself to 

inform the Office of the prior rejections of the September 2015 Application. In the absence 

of any authority imposing upon Plaintiff’s counsel a duty to disclose those rejections, 

however, the Court must conclude that they do not arise to fraud on the Office. 

The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and 

DISMISSES Defendants’ Ninth Affirmative Defense for Fraud on the Copyright Office.7

 

 

6 As to the “prior publication,” it appears from the parties’ prior summary judgment briefing that the Tom 

Brady joke was first published on Twitter on February 3, 2015, at 8:49 a.m., and subsequently published 

on Plaintiff’s blog that same day thirteen minutes later, at 9:02 a.m. See Sep. Stmt., ECF No. 97-1, ¶ 59. 

The Date of Publication and Nation of First Publication on Plaintiff’s registration therefore appear 

accurate, see Lorenzo Decl. Ex. 4, ECF No. 167-4 at 56, despite the fact that the Tom Brady joke was first 

“published” thirteen minutes earlier on Twitter.

7 The Court declines to convert Plaintiff’s Motion into one for summary judgment; however, the additional 

evidence introduced by Plaintiff but inappropriate for consideration on a motion for judgment on the 

pleadings would further support dismissal of Defendant’s ninth affirmative defense on the alternative 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 15 of

 18
16

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. Tenth Affirmative Defense: Unclean Hands

“To establish unclean hands, a defendant must demonstrate (1) inequitable conduct 

by the plaintiff; (2) that the plaintiff’s conduct directly relates to the claim which it has 

asserted against the defendant; and (3) plaintiff’s conduct injured the defendant.” MetroGoldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 518 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1223 (C.D. Cal. 

2007) (quoting Survivor Productions LLC v. Fox Broadcasting Co., No. CV01-3234 LGB 

(SHX), 2001 WL 35829270, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2001) (citing Fuddruckers, Inc. v. 

Doc’s B.R. Others, Inc., 826 F.2d 837, 847 (9th Cir. 1987)). “The application of 

the unclean hands doctrine is generally a fact intensive inquiry,” Morfin-Arias v. Knowles, 

No. 16-CV-06114-BLF, 2018 WL 1710369, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018), and the 

“defense is recognized only rarely.” 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.09 (2018) (citing Dream 

Games of Ariz., Inc. v. PC Onsite, 561 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2009); L.A. News Serv. v. 

Tullo, 973 F.2d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 1992)).

In addition to the allegations underlying their fraud on the Copyright Office 

affirmative defense, see Am. Ans. ¶ 70, Defendants’ unclean hands affirmative defense is 

premised upon alleged inequitable conduct related to discovery in this case. See id. ¶¶ 73–

74. Specifically, Defendants allege that Plaintiff: (1) “repeatedly and knowingly withheld 

 

grounds that, even if there were actionable omissions in the August 2016 Application, there was no 

prejudice to Defendants or intent to defraud the Office. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, “[t]he case law is 

overwhelming that inadvertent mistakes on registration certificates do not invalidate a copyright and thus 

do not bar infringement actions, unless the alleged infringer has relied to its detriment on the mistake, or 

the claimant intended to defraud the Copyright Office by making the misstatement.” Urantia Found. v. 

Maaherra, 114 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Harris v. Emus Records Corp., 734 F.2d 1329, 

1335 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Absent intent to defraud and prejudice, inaccuracies in copyright registrations do 

not bar actions for infringement.”). Whichever of those two standards applies, it is not met here. First, 

Defendants do not—and cannot—claim prejudice as a result of the alleged inaccuracies in or omissions 

from the August 2016 Application, particularly given that the August 2016 Application no longer has any 

direct bearing on the instant litigation. Further, in August 2015, Plaintiff’s attorney, Jayson Lorenzo, 

spoke with Ted Hirakawa of the United States Copyright Office (“Office”), who informed Mr. Lorenzo 

that a single application and a collective work application could be submitted for the same joke. Lorenzo 

Decl. ¶ 7. This is what Mr. Lorenzo did on Plaintiff’s behalf. See Am. Ans. ¶¶ 49–50. Absent any 

authority imposing upon Mr. Lorenzo a duty to disclose the rejections of the single application, the Court 

must conclude that Plaintiff and Mr. Lorenzo—although less forthcoming that they could have been—

lacked an intent to defraud the Office.

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 16 of

 18
17

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

responsive, relevant documents and information directly related to the validity of his 

asserted copyrights,” id. ¶ 73; and (2) “attempted to hide the withheld documents . . . by 

knowingly providing inaccurate information in response to an interrogatory request.” Id.

¶ 74. 

Plaintiff argues that, to the extent Defendants’ unclean hands defense is premised 

upon the same allegations as their fraud on the Office defense, Defendant’s unclean hands 

defense must fail for the same reasons. See Opp’n at 14–15. With respect to the alleged 

discovery misconduct, Plaintiff argues that “[a]ny alleged inequitable conduct has been 

addressed” because Plaintiff has “produced all information after the Summary Judgment 

Order” and the “Court ruled as Summary Judg[]ment that Defendant would be permitted 

to reopen discovery and bring another dispositive motion on the issue of fraud on the 

copyright office.” Id. at 15.

It is true that, generally speaking, “a defense of unclean hands may not be based 

on discovery misconduct.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Magma Design Automation, Inc., No. C-04-

3923 MMC, 2007 WL 420184, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2007) (citing Ellison Educ. Equip.,

Inc. v. Chen, No. SACV02-1184-JVS(ANX), 2004 WL 3154592 at *20 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 

21, 2004) (“To the extent [intervenor]’s unclean hands are caused by alleged discovery

abuses, . . . the proper remedy is a motion to compel or a motion for sanctions”); X-It 

Products, L.L.C. v. Walter Kidde Portable Equip., Inc., 155 F. Supp. 2d 577 (E.D. Va.

2001) (striking unclean hands defense to the extent based on litigation misconduct and

holding that the “appropriate remedy is . . . a motion to compel and/or a motion for 

sanctions”)). This is because a party aggrieved by discovery abuses may seek relief under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. See, e.g., Ellison Educ. Equip., Inc., 2004 WL 

3154592, at *20. There is a line of cases, however, suggesting that the unclean hands 

defense may be available where the other party engaged in discovery misconduct to conceal 

fraud concerning the underlying intellectual property rights at issue in the litigation. See 

McCormick v. Cohn, No. CV 90-0323 H, 1992 WL 687291, at *4 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 1992)

(reversing judgment on grounds on unclean hands where “plaintiffs have made clear 

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 17 of

 18
18

15-CV-1637 JLS (DHB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

misstatements regarding their ownership of the copyright before and during litigation and 

have violated a court order involving discovery that was highly relevant to the defense of 

the copyright claims”), aff’d, 17 F.3d 395 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Intamin, Ltd. v. 

Magnetar Techs. Corp., 623 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (summarily 

adjudicating non-infringement of patent based on unclean hands where plaintiff 

misrepresented ownership of patent and “failed to produce the forged assignments or 

disclose their existence during the court of discovery in this case”), aff’d, 404 F. App’x 496 

(Fed. Cir. 2010).

The Court need not attempt to reconcile these authorities, however, because it has 

found that Plaintiff’s conduct does not rise to the level of fraud on the Office.

Consequently, the Court must agree with Plaintiff that Defendants’ only recourse for the 

claimed discovery misconduct is under Rule 37. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s Motion and DISMISSES Defendants’ Tenth Affirmative Defense for Unclean 

Hands.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on 

the Pleadings (ECF No. 167) and DISMISSES Defendants’ Ninth Affirmative Defense for 

Fraud on the Copyright Office and Tenth Affirmative Defense for Unclean Hands. The 

parties SHALL FILE a proposed schedule of pre-trial dates within fourteen (14) days of 

the electronic docketing of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2018

Case 3:15-cv-01637-JLS-MSB Document 173 Filed 11/15/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 18 of

 18