Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01839/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01839-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright 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

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EEE BUSINESS INC., d/b/a EBUZONE.COM

and EBZ EBZ; MING NI SHANG; LIFENG

WANG, a/k/a ALICE WANG; NANCY

LINKER; and DOES 1-5,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-01839 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 APRIL 11, 2008 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, with reference to pin cites and 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 Plaintiff’s motion

for partial summary judgment.

Case 3:07-cv-01839-JSW Document 60 Filed 04/09/08 Page 1 of 2
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 each have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. Although the Court may grant a permanent injunction “on such terms as it deems

reasonable to prevent or restrain a violation,” Microsoft has made no presentation that it

is entitled to the specific terms contained in its proposed order, except to the extent that

the terms duplicate the prayer for relief in its complaint. See 17 U.S.C. § 502(a); 17

U.S.C. § 1203(b)(1). For instance, on this record, can the Court conclude that

Defendant Wang is liable for infringing every one of the listed copyrighted Microsoft

software products? On what basis may the Court enter such an injunction?

2. Should the Court determine that it cannot assess the credibility of Alice Wang’s

declaration in this procedural posture and should it find that Defendant Wang is liable

only for contributory copyright infringement, can the Court only grant summary

judgment against Wang on claims one and two?

3. Has Defendant Wang responded to the outstanding Requests for Admissions? If not,

why should this Court not deem those requests admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 36(a)(3)? In the case management statement, Defendants state that they

anticipate “filing a motion to withdraw admissions.” (CMC Stmt at 4.) On what basis

would Defendant so move? Having not yet presented the issue to the Court, is the Court

bound to deem the lack of responses admissions?

4. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-01839-JSW Document 60 Filed 04/09/08 Page 2 of 2