Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03132/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03132-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UAB “PLANNER5D”,

Plaintiff,

v.

FACEBOOK, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-03132-WHO 

ORDER RE: JOINT MOTION FOR 

CLARIFICATION

Re: Dkt. No. 58

Plaintiff UAB Planner 5D (“Planner 5D”) brought copyright infringement and trade secret 

misappropriation claims against defendants Facebook, Inc., Facebook Technologies, LLC, and the 

Trustees of Princeton University. See Complaint [Dkt. No. 1]. I granted defendants’ motions to 

dismiss the Complaint, with leave to amend. As to the copyright infringement claims, I held that 

“Planner 5D can either amend its Complaint to sufficiently allege that its works are non-United 

States works that are exempt from registration, or dismiss this suit and bring another suit after 

registering with the Copyright Office.” UAB “Planner 5D” v. Facebook, Inc., No. 19-CV-03132-

WHO, 2019 WL 6219223, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019). As to the trade secret 

misappropriation claims, I gave Planner 5D an opportunity to amend its Complaint to plausibly 

allege how the alleged works were trade secrets and specifically allege misappropriation as to each 

defendant. Id. at *10-11.

Planner 5D then filed a First Amended Complaint realleging its trade secret claims and a 

separate notice expressing its intent reallege its copyright claims once it satisfied 17 U.S.C. section 

411(a)’s registration requirement. See First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) [Dkt. No. 53]; 

Plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to Satisfy 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) Copyright Registration Requirement 

Before Re-Asserting Its Copyright Infringement Cause of Action [Dkt. No. 54]. On December 18, 

Case 3:19-cv-03132-WHO Document 59 Filed 03/05/20 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

2019, I granted parties’ stipulation to adjourn the time for defendants to respond to the FAC

pending the parties’ forthcoming Joint Motion for Clarification. See Order Granting Joint 

Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint [Dkt. No. 56]. 

On February 28, 2020, parties filed their Joint Motion for Clarification seeking guidance 

on how this litigation should proceed with the trade secret claims pending in this suit given that 

Planner 5D must file a separate suit to reassert its copyright claims after satisfying the registration 

requirement. See Joint Motion for Clarification (“JMC”) [Dkt. No. 58].1 

Planner 5D’s suggestion that I allow supplemental pleading for its copyright claims is 

barred by the Supreme Court’s decision in Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, 

LLC, 139 S. Ct. 881, 887 (2019). Defendants’ suggestion that Planner 5D should amend its 

complaint to allege how its copyright works are exempt from the registration requirement is not 

helpful given that Planner 5D’s notice clearly indicates its intent to comply with the registration 

requirement. That leaves me with two choices, whether (i) Planner 5D should re-assert its 

copyright claims in a new lawsuit, which would then be related to, and consolidated with, the trade 

secret claims still pending in this lawsuit, or (ii) Planner 5D should voluntarily dismiss this lawsuit 

altogether and re-assert both its copyright and trade secret claims in a new lawsuit. Planner 5D 

contends that the first option would allow it to preserve the filing date of its trade secret claims but 

defendants argue that it would create a problem of claim splitting. JMC 3-4 and 7-8. 

The procedure in Izmo, Inc. v. Roadster, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-06092-NC, 2019 WL 

2359228 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 4, 2019) (“Izmo I”) is instructive. Plaintiff in Izmo I brought copyright 

infringement claims, alleging that defendant copied and used 80 copyrighted images, and a 

separate Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) claim. Id. at *1. Defendant moved for 

partial dismissal, claiming that only 11 of the 80 copyrighted images were registered prior to the 

1 Defendants also argue that my order dismissed Planner 5D’s trade secret claims and that Planner 

5D impermissibly attempts to re-plead them in the FAC. JMC 5. That interpretation is incorrect 

because my order expressly gave Planner 5D leave to amend its trade secret claims. See 2019 WL 

6219223, at *10 (“Planner 5D must plausibly allege how the ‘structure’ of its website made its 

data files secret and protected them from reproduction, and how the Terms of Service are 

enforceable and bound the parties to treat the files as confidential.”); see also id. at * 11 (“If 

Planner 5D chooses to amend its complaint, it must specifically allege misappropriation as [to] 

each Princeton and Facebook.”).

Case 3:19-cv-03132-WHO Document 59 Filed 03/05/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

filing of the original complaint and the remaining 69 images were registered six months after. Id. 

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Fourth Estate, the court dismissed plaintiff’s copyright 

infringement claims to the extent that the plaintiff alleged infringement of images registered after 

the complaint was filed. Id. at * 2. It did not dismiss the pending DMCA claim. Plaintiff then 

filed Izmo, Inc. v. Roadster, Inc., Case No. 5:19-cv-02679-NC (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2019) (“Izmo 

II”), which the court related to, and consolidated with, Izmo I.

A similar process makes sense here. Once Planner 5D has satisfied Section 411(a)’s 

registration requirement, it can re-assert its copyright claims in a new lawsuit, which would then 

be related to, and consolidated with, the trade secret claims still pending in this lawsuit. See 

Wolfes v. Burlington Ins. Co., No. C-07-00696RMW, 2008 WL 2002522, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. May 

7, 2008) (after weighing the equities, district court may exercise discretion to dismiss, stay, or 

enjoin second-filed action, or consolidate both actions).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2020 

William H. Orrick

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-03132-WHO Document 59 Filed 03/05/20 Page 3 of 3