N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOHANNSONGS-PUB LISHING, LTD.,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. R OLF LOVLAND; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 20-55552 D.C . No. 2:18-c v-10009-AB -SS
M EM O R ANDUM *

JOHANNSONGS-PUB LISHING, LTD.,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. PEERM USIC LTD.,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt, UM G REC ORDINGS, INC .,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt, W AR NER REC ORD S INC ., inc orre c tly sue d a s W arne r M usic Group, No. 20-55759 D.C . No. 2:18-c v-10009-AB -SS 

# FIL ED
NOV 29 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt, POLYGR AM PUB LISHING, INC ., suc c e s sor to Unive rsa l -Poly g ram Inte rnationa l Publishing, Inc . a nd inc orre c tly

sue d a s Unive rsa l M usic Publishing Group,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt,
and R OLF LOVLAND,

De fe nda n t, B RENDAN GR

AHAM ; APPLE INC ., De fe nda n ts, DOES, 1-20, De fe nda

n t, SPOTIFY TEC HNOLOGY S.A.,

De fe nda n t. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Andre B irotte , Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 16, 2021 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia

2B e fore : B YB EE a n d B ENNETT, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B A TAILLON, ** Distric t Judge
. Joha

nnsongs-Publishing, Ltd. holds the c o py right to the

m usic a l
c om position of the

1977 Ic e la

ndic song Sök

nuður . It a lle g e s tha

t You Raise

Me Up , a song c om

pose d by R olf Løvla

nd in 2001 a

nd popula riz e d by Josh Groba

n in 2003, infringe s on its c o py right. Thedistric t c ourt gra n te d De fe nda

n ts’ m otion for
sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd de nie d De fe nda

nts’ m otion for a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s unde r 17 U.S.C . § 505. Thepa

rtie s c ross-a

ppe a le d. W e a ffirm
. 1. Joha

nnsongs a rgue s tha t the pa ne l should de

pa rt from the Ninth C irc uit’ s two-pa

rt e xtrinsic /intrinsicte st for substa ntia l sim ila

rity an d inste a d a

pply the Se c ond C irc u it’ s “ ordina ry obse rve r” te st. C

ompare C orbe llo v . Valli , 974 F.3d 965, 974 (9th C ir. 2020), c e rt. de nie d, 141 S. C t. 2856 (2021), w i th Andy W arhol Found. for Visual Arts, Inc . v . Goldsmith , 11 F.4th 26, 53 (2d C i r. 2021). The pa ne l ha s no oc c a s ion to c o nside r suc h a n a rgum e n t be c a

use the two-pa

rt
e xtrinsic /intrinsic te st is c i rc uit pre c e de n t a nd the pa ne l m ay only

de pa rt from suc h pre c e de nt “ if a

subse que nt Supre m e C o urt opinion ‘ un de rc ut[s] the the ory or
re a s oning unde rly ing the prior c irc uit pre c e de nt in suc h a wa y tha t the c a se s a

re
c le arly irre c onc ila

ble .’ ” In reN

ic hols , 10 F.4th 956, 961 (9th C ir. 2021) (a lte ra tion

* * The Honora

ble Jose ph F. B ata illon, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ne b ra ska , sitting by de signa tion. 3in origina l) (quoting M ille r v . Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th C ir. 2003) (e n ba nc )). No suc h opinion e xists he re . 2. The distric t c ourt gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt a fte r re fusing to a dm it the re ports of Joha

nnsongs’ e xpe rt, Judith Fine ll, a nd a dm itting the

re ports of De fe nda nts’ e xpe rt, Dr. La

wre nc e Fe rrara . The distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha t Fe rrara ’ s ana ly sis wa s “ e ffe c tive ly , unre b utte d” and he ld tha t Sök nuður and You Raise Me Up are not substa ntia lly sim ila r. W e hold tha

t the distric t c ourt did not
a buse i ts disc re tion in e xc l uding Fine ll’ s e xpe rt re ports be c a u se the y fa ile d to filte r out simila ritie s tha t a re attributa

ble to prior a

rt, a s re quire d unde r the e xtrinsic te st. Se e Ric e v . Fox

Broad. C o. , 330 F.3d 1170, 1174–80 (9th C ir. 2003), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Sk

idmore v . Le d Ze

ppe l in , 952 F.3d 1051 (9th C ir. 2020) (e n ba nc ). Furthe rm ore , the distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion in a dm itting Fe rrara ’ s re ports be c a

use the c ourt’ s findings— that Fe rrara

a pplie d re lia

ble princ iple s a

nd m e t hods, he a ppropria te ly filte re d out prior a

rt, a nd his c onc l usions
are w e ll supporte d by

e vide n c e
— are supporte d by the re c ord. C

f. Sw irsk y v . C are y , 376 F.3d 841, 846–47 (9th C ir. 2004). C onside ring denov o the e vide nc e be fore the distric t c ourt, we hold tha t the distric t c o urt did not err in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt. Joha

nn songs fa ile d to offe r a dm issiblee v ide n c e to re but Fe rrara ’ s a na ly sis, so there is no ge n u ine dispute
4of m ate ria l fa c t a s to his c onc lusions tha t Sök nuður a n d You Raise

Me Up are not substa ntia lly sim ila r and m ost of the ir sim ila ritie s a re attributa

ble to prior a

rt. B a se d on the se c onc l usions, Joha nnsongs ha s fa ile d to sa

tisfy the e xtrinsic te st a

nd De fe nda nts a re e ntitle d to judgm e nt a s a m atte r of la

w. S e e N e w ton v . Diamond

, 388 F.3d 1189, 1196 (9th C ir. 2004). 3. W e a l so hold tha

t the distric t c ourt’ s findings tha t Joha nnsongs’ c la im
wa s not frivolous nor obje c tive ly unre a s ona

ble are supporte d

by the re c ord. Se e Matte l , Inc . v . W

alk ing Mountain Prods. , 353 F.3d 792, 815 (9th C ir. 2003); c f. ShameOn You Prods., Inc . v . Bank s , 893 F.3d 661, 666 (9th C ir. 2018). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing a ttorne y ’ s fe e s to De fe n da

nts. 17 U.S.C . § 505. AFFIRM E D. Ea c h side to be ar its own c o sts.

5