Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01905/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01905-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT JACOBSEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MATTHEW KATZER and KAMIND

ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-01905 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON DECEMBER 15, 2006 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). 

The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such

authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendants’

motion to dismiss and RESERVES ruling on Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction.

Case 3:06-cv-01905-JSW Document 147 Filed 01/18/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

The parties shall have 25 minutes to address the following questions:

General Questions

1. The Court is faced with the issue of determining the legal status created by JMRI’s open

source materials, free and available on the internet, but ostensibly limited by conditions

of use.

a. In light of the fact that JMRI imposed conditions on the use of their free

software, does this create a nonexclusive license?

b. If so, is the essence of such a nonexclusive license the promise not to sue

for copyright infringement? (See In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 677 (9th

Cir. 1996).) Do Defendants thus contend that Plaintiff can only sue for

breach of contract?

c. However, why are Defendants not potentially liable for copyright

infringement where Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ use of the material

exceeded the scope of the license? (See S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886

F.2d 1081, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Sun Microsystems, Inc. v.

Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that

copyright owner waives his right to sue in copyright for conduct only

within the scope of the license).)

d. In the absence of a license, what authority governs Defendants’ alleged

use of the materials?

2. Is there any authority in the copyright context on the issue of accessibility to and

licensing of open source materials from groups who make information available for free

on the internet? Is this situation akin to the analysis of naked licenses in the trademark

context? (See, e.g., Barcamerica International v. Tyfield Importers, Inc., 289 F.3d 589,

598-99 (9th Cir. 2002).)

Defendants Matthew Katzer and Kamind Associates, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss

1. Is the Court correct in its assessment that Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment is

based, at least in part, on Defendants’ alleged tax benefit which qualifies as an

additional element and thus saves the claim from federal copyright preemption? If so,

how would Plaintiff have been entitled to such a tax advantage himself considering he

offered the disputed product for free? (See, e.g., Ghirardo v. Antonioli,14 Cal. 4th 39,

51 (1996) (elements for a claim of unjust enrichment are receipt of a benefit and unjust

retention of the benefit at the expense of another).)

2. How can this Court invalidate a settlement agreement reached in another court

proceeding or adjudicate the rights of a party to that agreement who is not a party to this

suit? Does Jerry Britton consent to this Court’s jurisdiction?

3. Under what legal authority does Plaintiff seek the relief in paragraphs H and T of his

amended complaint?

Case 3:06-cv-01905-JSW Document 147 Filed 01/18/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

1. What harm does Plaintiff seek to prevent by an injunction where Defendants have

voluntarily complied with the terms of Plaintiff’s demands? Is it absolutely clear that

Defendants’ allegedly wrongful activity cannot reasonably be expected to recur? See

LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Homes of Nevada, 434 F.3d 1150, 1153 (9th Cir.

2006) (citing Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U.S. 216, 222 (2000)).

2. Why is Matthew Katzer not potentially liable for direct copyright infringement if he had

supervisory discretion and contributory infringement if he allegedly induced or

materially contributed to the infringing conduct of his company?

3. Do the partes have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01905-JSW Document 147 Filed 01/18/07 Page 3 of 3