F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

B I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E O F I

N D I A , L

. P., a California limited partnership; B I K

R A M C H O U D H

U R Y , an I ndividual, Plaintiffs-Appellants

,

v

.

E V O L A T I O N Y O G A , L L C, a New York limited liability

company ; M A R K D R O S T , an I ndividual; Z E F E A S A M S O N , an I ndividual,

Defendants-Appellees

. N o. 13-55763

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-05506- ODW

- SS

OPI NI ON

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. W rig ht I I , District J u dg e, Presiding

Arg ued and Submitted May 8, 2015—Pasadena, California

F iled October 8, 2015

B efore: J ohn T. Noonan, Kim McL ane W ardlaw, and Mary H. Murg u ia, Circuit J udg es.

Opinion by

J udg e W ardlawB I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 2

SUMMARY *

Copyright

Affirming the district court’s g rant of p a r t ial summary judg ment, the panel held that a sequence of y og a poses a nd breathing ex ercises was not entitled to copy rig ht protection.

The p a nel held that u nder 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), the “Sequence,” d eveloped by B ikram Choudhury and described in his 1979 book, Bikram’s Beginning Y oga Class

, was not a proper subject of copy

rig ht protection because it was an idea,
process, or sy stem desig n ed to improve health, rather than an

ex p ression of an idea. B ecau s e t h e Sequence was an unprotectible idea, it was a lso ineli gi b le f or copy rig ht protection as a compilation or choreog raphic work.

COUNSEL

I vana Cing el (arg

ued), Carla C h r istofferson and Daniel Pe t r o celli, O’Melveny & My e rs L L P, L os Ang eles, California, for Defendants-Appellants.

Eric R. Maier (arg

u e d) and L ouis Shoch, Maier Shoch L L P, Hermosa B each, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Kevin M. F ong and Cy d ney A. Tune
, P i l l sbury W inthrop Sh a w Pittman L L P, San F rancisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Yog a Alliance.

* T h is su m m ary co n stitu

tes n o part o f th e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b een p rep ared b y

co u rt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.B I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 3

OP INION

W A RDL AW , Circuit J udg e:

W e must decid e whether a sequence of twenty

- six y og a poses a nd two breathing ex ercises developed b y B ikram Choudhury and described in his 1979 book, Bikram’s Beginning Y

oga Class

, is entitled to copy r ig ht protection. This question implicates a fundamental principle underly ing constitutional a

nd statuto r y copy

r ig ht protection—the idea/ex pression dichotomy

. B ecause c opy rig ht p rotection is limited to the ex pression of ideas, and does not ex tend to the ideas themselves, the B ikram Y og a Sequence is not a proper subject of copy

rig ht protection.

I. F actual and P rocedural History

T he I ndian practice and philosophy of y og a date back thousands of y ears. See L inda Sparrowe, Y o ga 9 (2002). Derived from a

ncient H i n du scriptures, including the B hag avad Gita, the practice o f y o g a teaches students to attain spiritual fulfillment throug h con t rol of the mind and body

. See Stefanie Sy

man, The Subtle Body: The S t o ry of Y oga in America 4 (2010). Yog a has evolved into a diverse set o f spiritual, p hilosophical, and phy sical disci p l i n e s. Some students p ractice y og a to transcend the phy si c al body a nd unite w ith divine powers; others focus on improving streng th, flex ibility , and overall phy sical fitness.

The history of y og a in the United States reflects its widerang ing appeal. So m e o f y og a’s f irst American adherents included nineteenth-cent

u r y t r a n s c e n d entalists, such as Henry David Tho r eau and Ralph W aldo Emerson, who were fascinated by y og a’s approach to achieving enlig htenm ent.B I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 4

I n the early twentie t h century , y og a g rew more popular a s scientists and phy sicians beg an to study the phy sical benefits of the p ractice. These phy sical b enefits caug ht the attention of Holly wood celebritie s , including Gloria Swanson, Greta Garbo, and Marily

n Monroe, who embraced y og a as a tool to fig ht illness and ag ing

. See Pankaj Mishra, Posing a s Fitness
, N.Y. Times, J uly 2 3
, 2 010. 1 B y the 1960s, Americans increasing ly turned to y og a as a “non-relig ious, decidedly unspiritual” form of phy sical ex e r cis e

. Sparrowe, supra , at 50.

I n 1971, B ikram Choudhury

, the “self-proclaimed ‘Yog i
to the stars,’” id. at 56, a rrived in Beverly Hills, California. He soon became a central fig ure in the g r owing popularity o f
y og a in the United States. B orn a n d raised in Calcutta, I ndia, Choudhury beg an study ing y o ga a t ag e four and learned hundreds o f traditional Hatha y og a “asana s , ” or individual
poses. Hatha y og a places particular e mphasis on the phy sical components o f y og a. Choudhury developed a sequ e n c e o f twenty -six asanas a

nd two breathing ex ercises, arrang ed in a particular order, which he calls the “Sequence.” See B ikram Choudhury

, Bikram’s Beginning Y o ga Class (1979). Choudhury opened his own studio, where h e beg a n off e ri ng “B ikram Yog a” classes. I n a B ikram Y o ga class, the Sequence is p r acticed over the course of ninety minutes, to a series of in s t r u c t ions ( the “Dialog ue”), in a room h eated to 105 deg rees F ahrenhe i t t o simulate Choudhury ’s native I ndian climate.

Choudhury populariz ed the Sequence by marketing the
many health and fitness benefits it provides. Choudhury

1 T h is article m ay b e fo u n d at h ttp ://w w w .n y tim es.co m

/2 0 1 0 / 0 7/2 5 / b o o k s/rev iew

/Mish ra- t.h tm l.B I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 5

informs prospective students that his “sy stem of Hatha Yog a is capable of helping y ou avoid, c orrect, cure, heal, or at least alleviate the sy

mptoms of almost any illness or injury .” He claims that he developed the Sequence after “many of y ea rs of research and verificatio n

. . . using modern medical
measurement techniques.” He tells reporters that he ex tended the careers of professional a thletes, including Kareem AbdulJ abbar and J o hn McEnroe. This messag e has resonated with

an American audie n c e: as the complaint in this action

e x p lains, “[ p ] ublic demand for B ikram Yog a classes gr e w steadily once B ikram Yog a p articipants realiz ed that B ikram’s unique y og a sty le and m e thod offered them tremendous phy sical, mental and other benefits.”

I n 1979, Choudhury published the book Bikram’s Beginning Y

o ga Class

, w hich includes descr i p t ions, photog raphs, and drawing s of the Sequence’s twenty -six
poses and two breathing e x ercises. Choudhury reg istered the book with the U.S. Copy rig ht Office in 1979. I n 2002, he also reg istered the “ c o mpilation of ex ercises” contained in the book, using a supplementary reg istration form that referenced back to the 1979 book. 2

I n 1994, Choudhury introduced the “B ikram Yog a Teacher Training Course.” I n 200 2 a n d 2005, respectively

, Mark Drost and Z e fea Samson e nrolled in and successfully completed the three-month B ikram Yog a Teacher Tra i n i n g

2 Ch ou d h u ry h as reg i s t e r ed sev eral o t h er w ork s w ith th e Co p y rig h t Of f ice, in clu din g Bik

ram ’ s B eg in n in g Yo g a Class (2 d ed .) (2 0 0 0 ), B ik ram ’ s B eg in n i n g Yo g a Class (so u n d cassette) (2 0 0 2 ), B ik ram ’ s Yo g a Co lleg e o f In d i a B eg i n n i ng Yo g a Dialo g u e (2 0 0 2 ), B ik ram ’ s Yo g a Co lleg e o f In d ia: Yo g a T each er T rain in g Co u rse: Cu rricu l u m Ou tlin e (2 0 0 2), Yo g a f

o r P reg n an cy (2 0 0 2 ), B ik ram ’ s A d v an ced Yo g a Class (2 0 0 6), an d B ik

ram ’ s Yo g a (2 0 0 7).B I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 6

course. I n 2009, Drost and Samson founded Evolation Yog a , L L C. Evolation Yog a offers several ty pes and sty les of y og a , including “ hot y og a,” which is similar to “B ikram’s B asic Yog a Sy stem.” Evolation acknowl e d ges that hot y og a “includes 26 postures and two breathing e x ercises and is done for 90 minutes, accompanied by a series of oral instructions, in a room heated to approx imately 105 d eg rees F ahrenheit.”

On J uly 1, 2011, Choudhury and B ikram’s Yog a Colleg e of I ndia, L .P. (“Choudhury ” ) 3 f iled a complaint in the Central District o f California alleg ing

, inter alia

, that defendants Evolation Y og a, L L C, Mark Drost, a n d Z efea Samson (“Evolation”) infring ed “B ikram’s Copy rig hted W o rks throug h substantial use o f B ikram’s Copy rig h ted W orks in and a s part of Defendants’ offerin g o f y og a classes.” On November 12, 2012, Evolati o n moved for partial summary judg ment as to Choudhury ’s claim of copy rig ht infring ement of the “Sequence.” The district court gr a n t e d Evolation’s motion, r uling that the “Sequence is a collection of facts a nd ideas” that is not entitled to c opy rig ht p rotection. The parties settled all remaining claims ag ai n s t each other, a nd Choudhury timely

appealed as to the “Sequence.”

II. Standard of

Review

“W e r eview de novo a district court’s g ran t of partial
summary judg ment, a

nd may affirm o n any g round supported by the record.” W

hite v. City of Sparks

, 500 F .3d 953, 955 (9th Cir. 2 0 0 7 ) (citation omitted). “ After ‘viewing the

3 Fo r th e p u

rp o ses o f th is ap p eal, it is n o t n ecessary to d istin g u ish b etw een B ik

ram Ch o u d h u ry , th e in d iv id u al, an d B ik ram ’ s Yo g a Co lleg e

o f In d i a, L P. A cco rd in g l y , w e ref er to all P lain tif

f s- A pp ellan ts as Ch o u d h u ry

.B I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 7

evidence in the lig ht most favorable to the nonmoving party ,’

we d ete rmine ‘whether there are any g enuine issues o f material fact and whe ther the d istrict court correctly a pplied the relevant substanti v e l a w.’” Id. (quoting Am. Civil Liberties U

nion o f Nev. v. City of Las Vegas
, 333 F

. 3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2003)).

III. Discussion

Thoug h Choudhury emphasiz es the aesthetic attributes o f the Sequence’s “g raceful flow,” at bottom, the Sequence is an idea, process, or sy stem desig ned to i m p rove health. Copy rig ht pr o t e cts o nly the ex pression of this idea—the words and pictures used t o describe the Sequence—and not the ide a o f t he Sequence itself. B ecause the Sequence is an unprotectible idea, it is a lso inelig ible for copy rig ht protection

as a “compilation” o r “choreog raphic work.” The district
court p roperly g ranted partial summary judg ment in favor o f Evolation because the Sequence is not a proper subject o f
copy rig ht.

A. The Sequence Is an Unprotectible Idea.

Section 102(a) of the Copy rig h t Act of 1976 sets forth the
proper subjects of copy

rig h t protection. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). Section 102(b) ex p res s ly ex c ludes protection for “any idea, procedure, process, sy stem, method of operatio n , concept, principle, or discovery

, r e g ardless of the form in which it is described, ex p lained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” Id. § 102 ( b). Section 102(b) codifies the “idea/ex pression dichotomy ,” under which “ev e ry idea, theory

, and fact in a

c o py rig hted work becomes instantly a vailable for pub l i c

ex p loitation at the moment of publication.” Golan v. H older

, 132 S. Ct. 873, 890 (2012) (quoting Eldred v. Ashcroft

,B I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 8

537 U.S. 186, 219 (2003)); see also Fr y b arger v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.
, 812 F .2d 5 25, 529 (9th Cir. 1987) (ex plaining that Section 102(b) “ex pressly codified” this principle); H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476, a t 57 (1976) (ex plaining that the “purpose [ of Section 102(b)] is to restate . . . that the basic dichotomy between ex pression and idea remains unchang ed”).

The idea/ex pression d ichotomy h as two constitutional foundations: the Copy

rig ht Clause and the F irst Amendment. U n der the Copy

rig ht Clause, “[ t] he primary objective o f
copy rig ht is not to reward the labor of authors

, b u t ‘[ t] o promote the Prog ress of Science a n d useful Arts.’” Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.
, 499 U.S. 3 40, 349 (1991) ( quoting U.S. Const. art. I
, § 8
, cl. 8). Thus, “[ t] he ‘constitutional command’

. . . is tha t Cong ress, to the ex tent it enacts copy

rig ht laws at a l l

, create a ‘sy stem’ that ‘promote[ s] the Prog ress of Science.’” Eldred

, 537 U.S. at 212 (quoting Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kans a s C i ty , 383 U.S. 1, 6 ( 1966)). “To this end, copy rig ht assures a

uthors the rig ht to their o rig inal ex pression, but encourag es others to build freely upon the ideas and informat i o n convey ed by a work.” Feist
, 499 U.S. at 3 49–50. At th e s ame time, the idea/ex pression dichotomy “str ike[ s] a definitional balance between the F irst Amendment and the Copy rig ht Act b y permitting free communication of facts while still protecting

an author’s ex pression.” Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation Enters.
, 471 U.S. 539, 5 56 (1985); see also Eldred

, 537 U.S.
at 219 (describing the idea/ex pression dichotomy as a “ builtin F irst Amendment accommodation[ ] ”); L.A. News Serv. v

. Tullo

, 973 F

. 2d 7 9 1
, 795 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Copy r ig ht law incorporates F irst Amendme n t g oals by ensuring that
copy rig ht protection ex tends only to the forms in which ideas and information are e x pressed a nd not t o t h e ideas a

nd informa t i on themselves.”); 5 Melville B

. Nimmer & DavidB I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 9

Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 19E.04[ B ] (2015) (“[ F ] r ee

access to ideas is vital not o nly for copy rig ht law but also for the maintenance of the democratic dialog ue . . . .”).

I n Baker v

. Selden

, 101 U .S. 99 (1879), the S u p r e m e Court addressed the protection copy rig ht law provide d t o a book, a classic subject of copy rig ht protection, e x plaining a system of book-keeping

. Id. at 99–100. The Court h eld that the b o o k’s ex pression of the book-keeping sy stem was protected, b u t t he sy stem of book-keeping itself was not entitled to copy

rig ht protecti o n

. Id. at 102. The Court

ex p lained:

The d escription of the art i n a book, thoug h entitled to the benefi t o f copy rig ht, lay s no foundation for an e x clusive c laim to the art itself. The object of the o ne is ex planation ; the object of the o ther is u se. The former may be secured by copy

rig ht. T he la t t e r can only be s e c u r e d

, if it can be secured at a ll, b y letters-patent.

Id. at 105.

F ollowing Baker

, a

n d recog niz ing this vital distinction between ideas and ex pression, courts have routinely held that the c opy rig ht for a work describing how to perform a process does n ot e x tend t o the process itself. I n Palmer v. Braun
, 287 F .3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2002), f or ex ample, the E leventh Circuit held that meditation ex e rcises describe d i n a copy rig hted manual o n ex ploring the c onsciousness were “a process” unentitled to c opy rig ht protection. I

d. at 1334. The
court ex plained that the “ e x e r cises, while undoubtedly the product of much time a

nd effort, are, a t bottom, simp ly aB I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 10

process for a chieving i n c reased consciousness. Such
processes, even if orig inal, cannot be protected b y copy rig ht.” 4 Id. Similarly

, in Publications International, Ltd.

v. M eredith Corp.
, 88 F .3d 4 7 3 (7th Cir. 1996), the Seventh Circuit held that recipes contained in a c o py rig hted cookbook

are not entitled to copy r i gh t protection, for they merely “describe a procedure by which the reader may produce many dishes,” and “there can be no monopoly in t he copy rig ht

se n s e in the ideas for producing certain foodstuffs.” Id. at 481. F inally

, in Seltzer v. Sun b r o c k

, 22 F

. Supp. 621 (S.D. Cal. 1938), whi c h p re d ates the Copy rig ht Act of 1976 but applies Baker

, the cou r t h e l d that the copy rig ht in a manual describing how to o rga n i z e roller-skating races d oes not

ex tend to the rules for the races th emselves. Id. at 630. The
court ex plained, “[ w] hat [ the author] really composed was a description of a sy stem for conducting races on r oller skates. A sy ste m, as such, can never be copy rig hted. I f it finds any protection, it must come from the patent laws.” Id. (citing Baker , 101 U.S. 99).

Here, we must similarly determine not the validity o f a copy rig ht b ut r ather its scope. 5 D oes Choudhury ’s copy rig ht

4 Cf. Arica In stitu te, In c. v. Pa lmer

, 9 7 0 F.2 d 10 6 7
, 1 0 7 5 (2 d Cir. 19 9 2) (h o ld i n g th at th e o w

n er o f co p y

rig h t s i n t

rain in g m aterials describ in g

an cien t S u f

i m eth o d s to “ b etter u n derstan d on eself an d o n e’ s i n teractio n s

w ith o th ers” w as j u d icially esto pp ed f ro m claim in g co p y

rig h t p ro tectio n f o r th e pro g ram tech n iq u es, in lig h t o f r e p resen tatio n s in co m m ercial
p u b licatio n s th at th e tech n i q u e s w ere “ b ased u p o n

. . . p ro v en scien tif

ic k n o w l ed g e” an d “ p ro v ab le in th e lab o rato ry an d clin ically ”).

5 A s n o ted ab o v e, Ch ou d h u ry o b tain ed a co p y rig h t f o r a “ co m p ilatio n of

ex ercises” th ro u g h h is 2 00 2 s u pp lem en tary re g i stratio n to Bikra m ’s B e g in n in g Y

o g a Cla ss , w

h i ch w as f

irst p u blish ed in 1 9 7 9

. Ch o u d h u ry claim s th at th e 2 0 0 2 su

p p lem en tary reg istratio n relates back to th e 1 9 7 9
reg istratio n

. In Ch o u dh u ry ’ s v iew

, th e su p p l em en tary reg istratio n th u sB I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 11

protection for his 1979 book ex tend t o t h e Sequence itself? Under the fundamental tenets of copy rig ht law and consistent with the precedents discussed above, the answer is no.

As Choudhury describes it, the Sequence is a “sy stem” o r

a “method” desig ned to “s y stematically work every p art o f the body

, to g iv e all internal org ans, a ll the veins, a ll the lig aments, and all the m uscles every thing they need to maintain optimum h ealth and max imum f u n c tion.” I n Bikram’s Beginning Y

oga Class

, Choudhury ex plains that he “arrived at the sequence o f postures” a fter “[ researching ] the diseases and the postures and a fter many y e ars o f research and v erification

. . . using modern medical measurement technique s

. ” The book tells readers that “B ikram’s twenty -six ex ercises sy stematically move fresh, o x y g enated blood to one hundred percent of y our body

, to each org an a nd fiber, restoring al l sy stems to healthy working order, just a s Nature intended. ” B onnie J ones Rey nold s , Introduction to Bikram’s Beginning Y

oga Class

, at x i (1979 ). T h is tex t promises readers that Choudhury ’s “sy stem of Hatha Yog a is capable of helping y ou avoid, correct, cure, h e a l, or a t least alleviate the sy

mptoms of almost any

illness or injury .”

Also illumin a

t i n g i s C h o u d

h u r y ’ s s p oken Dialog ue, which accompanies the Sequence. B efore t h e S e quence’s first breathing ex e rcise, for ex ample, the instructor tells students, “[ The e x ercise] is g ood for the lung s and respiratory sy stem.

issu ed w ith in f

i v e y ears o f f

irst p u b licatio n an d th eref

o re serv es as “ p rim a f acie ev id en ce o f th e v alid ity o f th e co p y rig h t.” 1 7 U.S.C. § 4 1 0 (c). Here, h o w ev er, w e n eed n o t d ecid e w h eth er Ch o u d h u ry ’ s su

p p lem en tary reg istra t i o n is p rim a f

acie ev id en ce o f th e v alid ity o f th e co p y rig h t, f or

ev en if it w ere, th e u nd i s p u ted f acts are s u f

f icien t to o v erco m e an y p resu m p tio n o f v alid ity

.B I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 12

This ex ercise ex pands y our lung s to their m ax i mum

ex p ansion capacity

. And it improves the elasticity of y our lung s.” B e fore the twelfth pose, the instructor ex plains:

Every ex ercise in the world y ou do, y ou burn
energ y /calories like d r i ving a car burns g as. The tank is empty , y ou need to fill it up ag ain. Hatha Yog a class is a g as station, it is the only place in the world where y ou g ain energ y instead of burning energ y

. Asan a is the only natural phy sical a ctivity in the world because it is scientific [ and] with the help of scienc e,

we can ex plain nature.

An essential eleme n t of this “sy stem” is the o rder in which the y og a p oses and breathing ex ercis e s are arrang ed. Bikram’s Beginning Y

oga Class ins t ructs readers, “Do the
p oses in the strict order g iven in this book. Nothi n g a b o u t B ikram’s B eg inning Yog a Class is haphaz ard. I t is desig n ed
to scientifically warm and stretch mus c les, lig aments, a nd tendons in the order in which they should b e s tretched.” Bikram’s Beginning Y

oga Class

, su

p r a , at x i. F or instance, Choudhury ex p lains, “Camel Pose (Ustrasana ) stretches the abdomen and c ompresses the spine; s o f o r the nex t posture, I c h o s e the Rabbit Pose (Sasang asana), which does the

converse: stretches the back and compresses the abdomen.” 6 One Y oga Journal article ex plains that “[ a] ccordi n g to

6 A recen t research st u d y p u b lish ed i n th e Jo u rn al o

f S tren g th a n d Co n ditio nin g Resea rch f u rth er ex p lain s th e clin ical e ffects o f th e Seq u en ce’s c o m

p o s itio n : “ T h e co m

b in atio n of rap id tran sitio n b etw een p o stu res an d en v iro n m en tal h eat stress p ro d u ces a su b stan tial card io v ascu lar resp o n s e an d m u scle f atig u e.” B rian L

. T racy & Cad y E.F. Hart, Bikra m Yo g a Tra i n in g a n d Ph ysica l Fitn ess in Hea lth y Y o u n g Ad u lts , 2 7 J . Stren g th

& Co n ditio n in g Res. 8 2 2 , 8 2 3 (2 0 1 3 ).B I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 13

B ikram, each posture in his series forms the perfect basis for the nex t, warming and stretching the appropriate muscles, lig aments a

nd tendons.” L oraine Despres, Y oga’s Bad Boy: Bikram Choudhury , Yog a J ., Aug . 28, 2007. 7

Choudhury thus attempts to secure copy rig ht protection for a healing art: a sy stem desig ned to y ield phy sical benefits and a sense o f well-being

. Simply put, this attempt is precluded by copy

rig h t’s idea/ex press i o n d i c h o t o m y , c odified by Section 102(b). A s the Supreme Court ex plained in Baker

, “Certain mix tures are found to b e of g reat value in the healing
art. I f the discoverer writes and publishes a b o o k o n the subject (as reg ular phy sicians g e n e rally do), h e g ains no

ex c lusive ri gh t to the manufacture and sale of the medicine; he g ives that to the p u b l i c

. ” 101 U.S. at 102–03. Thus, for

ex a mple, the copy

rig ht for a book d escribing how to perform

a complicated surg e ry does not g ive the holder the ex clusive rig ht to perform the surg ery

. L ike the series of movements a surg eon makes, the Sequence is, as Choudhury tells readers,

a method d esig ned to “cure, h eal, or at le a s t alleviate” phy sical injuries and illness. Monop o l y protection for such a method “can only

be secured, if it can be secured at all, by letters-patent.” Id. a t 105; see also S ega Enters. Ltd. v

. Accolade, I

n c

. , 9 77 F .2d 1510, 1526 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (J an. 6, 1993) (“I n order to e njoy a lawful monopoly

over the ide a o r functional principle underly ing a work, the
creator of the w ork must satisfy the more string ent standards imposed by the patent laws.”). I n lig ht of Bak er and its
prog e ny , Choudhury ’s healing methodolog y is not elig ible for protection by copy

rig ht. I ndeed, if it is e ntitled to protection

7 T h i s a r t icle m ay be lo cated at h ttp ://w w w .y o g aj o u rn al.co m

/ article/lif esty le/y o g a- s- bad

- b o y

- b ik ram

- ch o u d h u

ry /.B I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 14

at all, that protection is more p rope rly soug ht throug h the patent process. 8

That the Seque nce may p roduce spiritual a nd
psy cholog ical benefits ma k es i t no less an idea, sy stem, o r process and n o more a menable to copy rig ht p r o t ection. Choudhury ’ s personal declaration ex plains that the Sequence offers “s p i r i t ual benefits” to his students and “lead[ s] to a g eneral sense of peace and well-being that is undoubtedly o f benefit to all of us.” L ike the meditation ex ercises desig n ed
to achieve g reater consciousness in Braun
, 287 F .3d at 1334, the S e q u en ce sets forth a method to a ttain identifiable, if spiritual and psy cholog ical, result s : a “sense of well-being ” and “boundless en er gy

. ” Bikram’s Beginning Y oga Class

, supra , at x i. 9 As such, it falls w i thin the Copy rig ht Act’s definition of an idea, p roc e s s , or sy stem ex cluded from
copy rig ht protection. S

ee 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Choudhury contends that the Sequence’s arrang ement o f postures is “particularly

beautiful and g raceful.” B ut beauty is not a b asis for copy

rig ht protecti o n

. The performance o f
many ideas, sy stems, o r proc esses may be beautiful: a surg eon’s intricate movements, a book-keeper’s careful notations, o r a baker’s k

neading mig ht each possess a c ertain
grace for at least some viewers. I ndeed, from V ermeer’s

8 W e d o n o t o p in e o n

w h eth er th e Seq u en ce is, in f act, p aten tab le.

9 Ch ou d h u ry ’ s w eb site f

eatu res research

, in clu d in g a rep o rt p resen ted at th e A n x iety an d D ep ressio n A sso ciatio n o f A m erica Co n f eren ce, w h ich

co n clu d es t h at B ik

ram Yo g a m ay red u ce stress, an x iety

, an d d ep ressio n

am o n g w om en at risk f

o r m en tal h ealt h p ro blem s. S ee Fran L ow

ry , Ho t Yo g a Co o ls An xiety, Relieves Dep r essio n , Med scap e (A p r. 1 3
, 2 0 1 5 ),
rep ro d u ced a t Resea rch

, B ik

ram Yo g a, h ttp ://w

w w .b ik ram y o g a.co m / B ik ram Yo g a/Research .p h

p (last v isited

Sep t. 1 6 , 2 0 1 5 ).B I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 15

milkmaid to L ewis H i n e ’s power house mechanic, the individual eng rossed in a process has long attracte d artistic attention. B ut the beauty of the process does not permit one who describes it to g ain, throug h copy rig ht, the monopolistic
power to ex clude all others fr o m practicing it. This is true even where, as here, the process was conceived with at least

some aesthetic considerations in mind. J ust as some steps in

a recipe may reflect no more than the a uth o r’s belief that a particular ing redient is beautiful or that a particular co o k i ng technique is impressive to w atch and empowering to practice,

some elements in Choudhury ’s Sequence may reflect his

ae sthetic preferences. Yet just like the r ecipe, the Sequence remai n s u n protectible as a p rocess the desig n of which primarily reflects function, not ex pression.

I n drawing the “difficult” line between idea a nd

ex p ression in this case, we a r e m i n d ful of the “g uiding consideration” of the idea/ex pression dichoto m y : “the preservation of the balance between competition a nd protection reflected in the patent and copy rig ht laws.” CDN Inc. v. Kapes
, 197 F .3d 1256, 1262 (9 t h Cir. 1999) (quoting Herbert R osenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian

, 446 F .2d 738, 742 (9th Cir. 1 971)). As i n B a k e r , the “object” of the book B i k ram’s B eginning Y

oga Class is “ex planation”: it tel l s readers how to perform the Sequence and encourag e s them to try it. Baker

, 101 U.S. at 105. The introduction to Bikram’s Beginning Y

oga Class

, for ex ample, urg es the a u dience to: (i) “turn to the Contents pag e,” (ii) “read throug h the book,” (iii) “ build g radually ,” and (iv) “do the pos e s in the strict order g iven in this book.” B ikram’s Beginning Y oga Class

, supra , at ix –x i. L ike a book ex plaining “B ook-keeping Simplified,” 101 U.S. at 100, Bikram’s Beginning Y oga Class
sets o ut to “communicate to the world the useful knowledg e which it contains.” Id. at 1 03. I t invites readers to practiceB I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 16

the method it describes. “B ut this object would be frustrated if the knowledg e could not be used without incurring the g u ilt of piracy of the book. ” I d

. C onsumers would have little

reason to buy Choudhury ’ s b o ok if Choudhury held a

m onopoly on the p ractice of the very activity he sough t t o populariz e. Rather than “st i mulat[ ing ] artistic creativity for the g eneral publi c go o d,” c opy rig ht protection for the Sequence would p revent the p ublic from eng ag in g w i th Choudhury ’ s idea and building upon it. Mattel, Inc. v

. MGA Entm’t, Inc.
, 705 F .3d 1108, 1 111 (9th Cir. 2013 ) ( q u o ting Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken

, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975)).

B. The Sequence Is Not a Copyrightable Compilation

. Choudhury c ontends that the Sequenc e i s entitled to copy rig ht protection as a “compi l a tion.” Specifically

, Choudhury claims that the Sequence quali f i es for copy

rig ht protection because his “selection, coordination, a nd
arrang ement” of twenty -six poses and two b r e a t h i ng ex e rcises
create a c oherent and e x pressive com position. The district court correctly

rejected this arg

ument.

The Copy

rig ht Act identifies compilations as a proper subject of copy

ri gh t

. Section 103 o f the Copy rig ht A ct provi d es that “[ t] he subject matter of copy rig ht as specified in section 102 inc l u d es c ompilations.” 17 U.S.C. § 103(a). A “compilation” is “a work forme d b y the collection a nd assembling of preex isting materials o r o f d ata that a re selected, coordinated, or arrang ed in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an orig inal w o r k o f authorship.” Id. § 101. I t essential to recog niz e, however, that Section 1 03 compleme n t s Section 102. T h us, while a compilation may be elig ible for c o p y rig ht protection, it mustB I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 17

nevertheless satisfy the requirements of Section 102. A compilation must, in other words, represent a n “orig inal work[ ] of authors h i p ,” a n d “[ i] n no case” may copy rig ht protection “ex tend to any idea, procedure, process , [ o r]
sy stem.” Id. § 102. The availability of c opy rig ht protection for compilations, therefore, does not eliminate Section 102’s categ orical bar on copy

rig h t protection for ideas.

The S upreme Court addressed the r elationship b etween these “two w e l l

- e s t a

b l i s hed propositions”

 ̄ that compilations

are elig ible for copy

rig ht but f

a ct s and ideas are not

 ̄ in Feist
, 4 99 U.S. 340. I n Feist
, the Court considered whether the collection of names, towns, a n d telephone n u m b ers in a telephone d irectory is e lig i b l e f o r copy rig ht protection as a compilation. T he Court held that “[ a] factual compilation is elig ible for copy

rig ht if it f

e a t u r es an orig inal selection o r arrang ement of facts, but the c opy ri gh t is limited to the particular selection or arrang ement. I n no e v e n t may copy rig ht ex tend to the facts themselves.” Id. at 350–51.

B y clai ming copy

rig h t protection for the Sequence as a compilation, Choudhury misconstrues the scope o f copy rig ht protect i on for compilations. A s we have ex plained, the Sequence is an idea

, process, or sy stem; therefore, it is not elig ible f o r c opy rig ht protection. That the Sequence may possess many constitu en t parts does not transform it into a proper subject of copy

rig h t protection. Virtually any process

or sy stem could be d issected in a similar fashion. Baker ’s

ex a mples of “how-to” treatises are instructive: “A treatise on

. . . the construction and use o f ploug hs, or wat ches, o r churns[ ,]

. . . or on the mode of drawing lines to produce the effect of perspective” would likely list the steps necessary to perform the p rocess it de s c ribes. 101 U.S. at 102. The watchmaking treatise’s author could not claim a copy rig ht inB I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 18

the process of making a watch, h owever, b y breaking down the proce s s into multiple steps and labeling it a “compil a tion.” Recipes further illustrate the p o int: a c ake recipe could be viewed as a “compilation” of caref u lly
arrang ed a

nd selected st ep s

 ̄ which may , of c ourse, reflect the personal preferences and tastes of the recipe’s author

 ̄ y et the recipe would remain, in most instances, a process that is
not e lig i b l e for copy

rig ht protection. See Meredith

, 88 F .3d
at 480–81. L ikewise, Choudhury cannot obtain c o p y r i g ht protection for the Sequence as a compilation b y separately identify ing the poses and breathing ex ercises it contains.

Moreover, according

to Choudhury

himself, the medical and functional considerations at the heart o f t h e Sequence compel the very sel e ct i on and arrang ement of p oses a nd breathing ex ercises for which he claims copy rig ht protection. According to Bikram’s Beginning Y o g a Class

, the “strict order” of the poses “ is d esig ned to scientifi c a l ly warm a nd stretch muscles, lig aments, and tendons in the order in which they should b e stretched.” Bikram’s B eginning Y oga Class

, supra , at x i. Read in the lig h t most f avorable to Choudhury

, the record demonstrates that the o v erarching reason for the
org aniz ation of the poses and breathing ex e rcises i n t he Sequence is to further the basic g oals o f the method: to attain “[ p] roper weig ht, muscle to n e , g lowing complex ion, boundless e n e r gy , v ibrant g ood health, and a sense o f well-being .” Id. The Sequence’s composition renders it

more effective as a process o r s y s t em , but not any more suitable for c o p y

r ig ht protection a s an orig inal work o f authorship.

I t makes no difference that similar results could b e

a c hieved throug h a different org aniz ation of y og a poses a nd breathing ex ercises. Choudhury arg ues that he c ould haveB I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 19

chosen from “hundreds of postures” a nd “c ountless
arrang ements of these postures” in developing the Sequence. B ut the p ossibility of a t t a i ning a particular end throug h

m u l t i p l e d i f

f e r e n t m e t h o d s d o e s n o t r e n d e r t h e uncopy r ig h table a p roper subject of copy rig ht. See BellSouth Advert. & Publ’g Corp. v. D onnel ley Info. Publ’g, Inc.
, 999 F .2d 1436, 1443 (11th Cir. 1993) ( “The relevant inquiry [ under Feist ] is n ot whe t h e r there is some imag inable, althoug h manifestly less useful, method of arrang ing business telephone listing s.”); see also ATC D istrib. Grp

. , I n c. v

. W hatever It Takes Transmissions & P arts, Inc.
, 402 F .3d 700, 711–12 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“To be sure, [ the p ublisher of a catalog describing a transmissio n parts numbering sy stem] could have arrang ed the parts information in o ther way s that

were potentially less c lear or useful, but this f act alone is insufficient to d e monstrate th e c r e ativity necessary for
copy rig ht protection.”). Thoug h it may be one of many possible y o g a sequences capable of attaining similar results, the Sequence is n evertheless a process and i s t h erefore inelig ible for copy

r ig ht protection. 1 0

10 Ch o u d h u ry arg u es t h a t t h e d istrict co u rt g ran ted u n d u e d ef eren ce to

a recen t Co py

rig h t Of f ice P olicy Statem en t co n cern in g co p y rig h t p ro tectio n f

o r y o g a s eq u en ces as co m

p ilatio n s. S

ee Reg istratio n o f C laim s to Co p y rig h t, 7 7 Fed

. Reg

. 37 6 0 5 (J u n e 2 2
, 2 0 1 2 ). In th is Statem en t, th e Co p y rig h t Of f i ce ex p lain s th at

a claim in a co m

p ilatio n o f ex ercises o r th e selectio n

an d arran g em en t o f y o g a po ses w i ll b e ref u s ed
reg istratio n

. . . . T h e Co p y rig h t Of f i ce w o u ld en tertain

a claim in th e selectio n , co o rd i n atio n o r arran g em en t o f

, f o r in stan ce, ph o to g rap h s o r d raw i n g s of ex ercises, b u t

su ch co m p ilatio n au t

h o rsh ip w o u ld n o t ex ten d t o th e selectio n , co o rd in atio n o r arran g em en t of th e ex ercises th em selv es th at are d ep icted in th e p h o t o g rap h s or d raw in g s

.B I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 20

C. The Sequence Is Not a Copyrightable Chore o g r aphic W ork.

The district court properl y rejected Choudhury ’s
arg ument that the Sequence is entitled to copy rig ht protection

as a choreog raphic work. 1 1 The 1976 Copy rig ht Act ex tended protection to “pantomimes and choreog raphic works,” which

were previously not copy rig htable. Pub. L

. No. 94–553, 90 Stat. 2 541, 2545 (codified at 17 U

. S

. C

. § 102(a)(4)). I n 1986, the Second Circuit observed that “[ e] x plic i t federal
copy rig ht prote ct i on for choreog raphy is a fairly recent development, and the scope of that protection is an uncharted

area of the law.” Horgan v. Macmillan, Inc.
, 789 F .2d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 1986). This remains true today

.

Th e parties debate the meaning of the term “choreog raphy ,” which we have not y et def ined in the

c o p y r ig ht contex t. Nor d id Cong ress define the term

I d

. a t 3 7 6 0 7. We n eed n o t d ecid e w h eth er th e district co u rt i m p ro p erly d ef erred to th e Co p y

rig h t Of f ice, h o w ev er, f

o r w e “ m ay af

f irm o n an y g ro u n d su

p p o rted by th e reco rd .” W hite

, 5 0 0 F

. 3 d a t 9 5 5 (citatio n

o m itted ). T h e u n d isp u ted ev id en ce, v iew ed in t h e lig h t m o st f

av o rab le to Ch o u d h u ry , p reclu d es co p y rig h t p ro t ectio n

f or th e Seq u en ce.

11 T h o u g h n o t d isp o s itiv e, w e n ote th at Ch o u dh u ry d id n o t reg ister th e Seq u en ce as a c ho r eo g rap h ic w o rk

. Ch o u d h u ry ’ s Certif icate of Reg istratio n f

o r Bikra m’s Beg in n i n g Yo ga C la ss is f o r “ a n on d ram atic l iterary w o rk .” W h en Ch o u d h u ry t ried t o ob tain a Certif

icate o f Reg istratio n f

or th e Seq u e nc e a s a “ w o rk o f p erf o rm in g arts,” th e Co p y rig h t Of f ice d en ied h is ap p l icatio n

. T h e Co p y rig h t Of f i ce stated th at th e “ co n cep t o r id ea fo r a p articu lar m an n er o r sty le o f ex ercise is n o t reg istrab l e.” Ch o u d h u ry ’ s su b seq u en t s up p lem en tary reg istratio n f or a

“ co m p ilatio n o f ex ercises” i s an ex ten sio n o f th e o rig in al reg istratio n

f or

“ a n o n d ram atic literary w ork ,” an d th u s is itse l f a literary w ork
reg istratio n

.B I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 21

“choreog raphic work[ ] ,” apparently b ecause its meaning was “fairly sett led.” H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476, at 53 (1976). The leg islative history do es ex plain, however, that it is not “necessary to specify t h at ‘choreogr aphic works’ do not include social d ance steps and simple r o utines.” Id. at 53–54. The Second Circuit has relied on the Compe n d i u m o f Copy rig ht Office Practices as p ersuasive authority a nd concluded that “[ c] horeog raphy represents a related series o f dance movements and p atterns or ga n iz ed into a coherent whole.” Hor

g an , 789 F .2d at 161 (quoting U.S. Copy rig ht Office, Compendium II: Compendium of Copyright Office Practices § 450.03(a) (1984)). T h e Compendium II defines

“ d a nce” as “static and kinetic successions of bod i l y movement in certain rhy t h m i c and spatial relationships.” Compendium II

, § 45 0

. 0 1

. 1 2 The “dance movements,” according to the Compendium I I
, “must be more than mere

ex e r cises, such a s ‘jumping jacks’ or w al k i n g s teps.” Id. § 450.03(a). F inally

, the Compendium II e x p l ains that choreog r aphy is “usually intended to be accompa n i e d b y music” but “need not tell a story ” and need not be presented “before an audience.” I

d. §§ 450.01–450.02.

I n this c ase, we need not decide whet h e r to a dopt the C opy rig ht Office’s definition of “choreog raphic work” o r fashion another on our own becaus e al l categ ories of works elig ible f or copy rig ht protection, including c horeog raphic works, are subject to the c r itical requirements and limitations of Section 102. T he beauty of this section is that it a llows for

12 T h is in terp retatio n is co n sisten t w ith d ictio n ary d ef in itio n s. W eb ster’ s d ef in es “ ch oreo g rap h y ” as “ th e art o f sy m b o lically rep resen tin g d an cin g .” W eb ster’ s Nin t

h New Co lleg iate Dictio n ary 2 3 7 (9 th ed

. 1 9 8 7 ). “ D an ce,” in tu rn , is def

in ed as “ a series of rh y th m ic an d pattern ed b o d ily

m o v em en ts u s u ally

p erf o rm ed to m

u s ic.” Id

. at 3 2 4

.B I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 22

the possibility that the term “ orig in a l work of authorship”
may , as i t has, evolve and encompass new forms o f

ex p ression that, like choreog raphy

, a re not easily reduced to neat definitions. “Cong ress recurrently adjusts copy rig ht law
to protect categ ories of works onc e o utside the law’s compass.” Golan

, 132 S. Ct. a t 892 (listing such categ o ries, including foreig n works, dramatic works, photog raphs

, motion pictures, fix ed sound recording s, and archi t e ctural works). Yet a s Cong ress has responded to new technolog ies and evolving understanding s of creative ex pression, the id ea/ex pression dichotomy has remained firmly in place. This dichotomy

, as this case illustrates, p olices the uncertain boundaries of copy

rig htable subject matter.

The Sequence is not c o py rig htable as a c horeog raphic work for the same reason that it is not co py r ig htable as a compilation: it is an idea, proc e s s , or sy stem to which
copy rig ht protection may “ [i] n no case” ex tend. 17 U .S.C. § 1 0 2 (b). W e recog niz e that the Sequence may involve “static and kinetic successions of bodily movement in c ertain rhy thmic and spatial relationship s.” Compendium II
, § 450.01. So too would a method to churn butter or drill for oil. That is n o accident: “su c ce ssions of bodily movement” often serve basic functional purposes. Suc h movements do
not become copy

rig htable as “choreo g raphic works” when they are par t a n d p a r c el o f a process. Even if the Sequence could f i t w ithin some c olloquial definitions o f dance o r choreog r aphy

, i t r e m ains a process inelig ible for copy rig ht protection.

The idea/ex pressi o n dichotomy

, c odified in Section 102(b), play s a similar role in defining the scope of protection for a “choreog

raphic work” a s it does for compilations. See Feist
, 499 U.S. at 350–51. I n the contex t o f c horeog raphicB I K R A M ’ S Y O G

A C O L L E G E V

. E V O L

A T I O N Y O G

A 23

works, that role is essential. O ur d ay -to-day lives c onsist o f
many routini z ed phy sical movements, from brushing one’s teeth to pushing a lawnmower to shaking a Polaroid picture,
t h at could be (and, in two of the p receding ex amples, h a v e been 1 3 ) characteriz e d as forms of dance. W ithout a pro p er understanding of the idea /ex pression dichotomy

, o ne mig ht obtain monopoly rig hts over these functional phy sica l
sequences by describing them in a tang ible med i u m o f

ex p ression and labeling them c h o r e o graphic works. The idea/ex pression dichotomy t hus ensures that ex pansive interpretations of the c a teg ories enumerated a s p roper subjects of copy

rig ht w i ll, “[ i] n no case,” ex tend copy rig ht protection b e y o n d its c o nstitutional limits. 17 U .S.C. § 102(b).

IV. Conclusion

Althoug h there is no cause to dispute th e many health, f i t n e ss, spiritual, and aesthetic benefits of y og a, and B ikram Yog a in particular, they do not b ring t he Sequence into the realm of copy

rig ht protection. T he S e q u ence falls squarely within Section 102(b)’s ex c lusion s f r o m c o p y rig ht protection,

no matter how it is labeled or how a b ly the label is a

rg ued. Therefore, the district court prop e rly g ranted Evolation’s motion for partial summary judg ment.

AF F IRMED.

1 3 S e e H

o w To Do th e ‘La wn Mo wer’ ( Da n ce)

, W ik iHo w , h ttp ://w w w .w ik ih o w .co m

/Do

- th e- %2 2 L aw

n

- Mo w er%2 2

- (Dan ce) (last

v isited Sep t. 1 6
, 2 0 1 5 ); S h a k e I t L i ke a Po la r o id Pictu r e , Urb an D i c t i o n a r y , h t t p : / / w w w

. u r b a n d i c t i o n a r y

. c o m / d e f i n e

. p h p ? t e r m = sh ak e+it+lik e+a+P o laro i d +p ictu re (last v isited Sep t. 1 6 , 2 0 1 5 ).