1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1875-AC

DEFENDANT RYAN BLAKE’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS - 1

Lybeck, Pedreira & Justus, PLLC

Fifth Floor – Chase Bank Building

7900 SE 28th Street

Mercer Island, WA 98040-6004

206-230-4255 Fax 206-230-7791

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

VOLTAGE PICTURES, LLC, a California 

Limited Liability Company, and DALLAS 

BUYERS CLUB, LLC, a Texas Limited 

Liability Company, 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

RYAN BLAKE,

Defendant

Case No.: 3:14-cv-1875-AC

DEFENDANT RYAN BLAKE’S ANSWER, 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS

I. ANSWER

Defendant Ryan Blake answers the allegations of plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for 

Copyright Infringement (hereinafter “Complaint”) as follows:

1. In response to Paragraph 1, the allegations of this Paragraph consist of statements 

of intention and/or legal conclusions for which no answer is required.

2. In response to Paragraph 2, the allegations of this Paragraph consist of legal 

conclusions for which no answer is required. Ryan Blake denies that any alleged copyright 

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AC Document 21 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1875-AC

DEFENDANT RYAN BLAKE’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS - 2

Lybeck, Pedreira & Justus, PLLC

Fifth Floor – Chase Bank Building

7900 SE 28th Street

Mercer Island, WA 98040-6004

206-230-4255 Fax 206-230-7791

infringement for which he is responsible occurred and therefore denies that facts conferring 

subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1338 exist as regards him

3. In response to Paragraph 3, the allegations of this Paragraph consist of statements 

of intention and/or legal conclusions for which no answer is required.

4. In response to Paragraph 4, because Ryan Blake is unaware of the citizenship of 

plaintiffs or their specific business structures, the allegations regarding venue conferred under 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b) are denied. The allegations regarding venue conferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1400 

are admitted. 

5. In response to Paragraphs 5, Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to 

ascertain the truth of the allegations of this Paragraph. The allegation of this Paragraphs are 

therefore denied.

6. In response to Paragraph 6, Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to 

ascertain the truth of the allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

7. In response to Paragraph 7, Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to 

ascertain the truth of the allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

8. In response to Paragraph 8, Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to 

ascertain the truth of the allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

9. In response to Paragraph 9, the allegations of this Paragraph consist of statements 

of intention and/or legal conclusions for which no answer is required.

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AC Document 21 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1875-AC

DEFENDANT RYAN BLAKE’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS - 3

Lybeck, Pedreira & Justus, PLLC

Fifth Floor – Chase Bank Building

7900 SE 28th Street

Mercer Island, WA 98040-6004

206-230-4255 Fax 206-230-7791

10. In response to Paragraph 10, the allegations of this Paragraph consist of statements 

of intention and/or legal conclusions for which no answer is required.

11. In response to Paragraph 11, admitted.

12. In response to Paragraph 12, admitted.

13. In response to Paragraph 13, denied.

14. In response to Paragraph 14, Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to 

ascertain the truth of the allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

15. In response to Paragraph 15, Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to 

ascertain the truth of the allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

16. In response to Paragraph 16, Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to 

ascertain the truth of the allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

17. In response to Paragraph 17, Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to 

ascertain the truth of the allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

18. In response to Paragraph 18, Ryan Blake admits that he subscribed for an internet 

service account, and that his Internet Service Provider (ISP) has reported that it had assigned his 

account IP address 76.115.109.21 as of the date and time alleged. He is without information 

sufficient to ascertain the truth of the remaining allegations of this Paragraph. The remaining 

allegations of this Paragraphs are therefore denied.

19. In response to Paragraph 19, Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to 

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AC Document 21 Filed 05/27/15 Page 3 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1875-AC

DEFENDANT RYAN BLAKE’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS - 4

Lybeck, Pedreira & Justus, PLLC

Fifth Floor – Chase Bank Building

7900 SE 28th Street

Mercer Island, WA 98040-6004

206-230-4255 Fax 206-230-7791

ascertain the truth of the allegations of these Paragraphs. The allegations of these Paragraphs are 

therefore denied.

20. In response to Paragraph 20, admitted.

21. In response to Paragraph 21, Ryan Blake denies using BitTorrent to download or 

upload Dallas Buyers Club at any time. He admits that he has used BitTorrent for other purposes. 

He admits having very limited knowledge of copyright laws. He has no specific knowledge about 

the copyrights associated with Dallas Buyers Club.

22. In response to Paragraph 22, Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to 

ascertain the truth of the allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

23. In response to Paragraph 23, Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to 

ascertain the truth of the allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

24. In response to Paragraph 24, the allegations of this Paragraph consist of statements 

of intention and/or legal conclusions for which no answer is required.

25. In response to Paragraph 25, which consists of general statements not applicable 

to Ryan Blake, admitted.

26. In response to Paragraph 26, which consists of general statements not applicable 

to Ryan Blake, admitted.

27. In response to Paragraph 27, which consists of general statements not applicable 

to Ryan Blake, admitted.

28. In response to Paragraph 28, which consists of general statements not applicable 

to Ryan Blake, admitted.

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AC Document 21 Filed 05/27/15 Page 4 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1875-AC

DEFENDANT RYAN BLAKE’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS - 5

Lybeck, Pedreira & Justus, PLLC

Fifth Floor – Chase Bank Building

7900 SE 28th Street

Mercer Island, WA 98040-6004

206-230-4255 Fax 206-230-7791

29. In response to Paragraph 29, which consists of general statements not applicable 

to Ryan Blake, admitted.

30. In response to Paragraph 30, which consists of general statements not applicable 

to Ryan Blake, admitted.

31. In response to Paragraph 31, which consists of general statements not applicable 

to Ryan Blake, admitted.

32. In response to Paragraph 32, which consists of general statements not applicable 

to Ryan Blake, admitted.

33. In response to Paragraph 33, which consists of general statements not applicable 

to Ryan Blake, admitted.

34. In response to Paragraph 34, which consists of general statements not applicable 

to Ryan Blake, admitted.

35. In response to Paragraph 35, which consists of general statements not applicable 

to Ryan Blake, admitted.

36. In response to Paragraph 36, which consists of general statements not applicable 

to Ryan Blake, admitted.

37. In response to Paragraph 37, Ryan Blake denies receiving any compensation. 

Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to ascertain the truth of the remaining allegations of 

this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are therefore denied.

38. In response to Paragraph 38, denied.

39. In response to Paragraph 39, Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to 

ascertain the truth of the allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AC Document 21 Filed 05/27/15 Page 5 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1875-AC

DEFENDANT RYAN BLAKE’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS - 6

Lybeck, Pedreira & Justus, PLLC

Fifth Floor – Chase Bank Building

7900 SE 28th Street

Mercer Island, WA 98040-6004

206-230-4255 Fax 206-230-7791

40. In response to Paragraph 40, denied.

41. In response to Paragraph 41, Ryan Blake denies the allegations to the extent they 

are made with specific reference to him. Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to ascertain 

the truth of the remaining allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

42. In response to Paragraph 42, Ryan Blake denies the allegations to the extent they 

are made with specific reference to him. Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to ascertain 

the truth of the remaining allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

43. In response to Paragraph 43, Ryan Blake denies the allegations to the extent they 

are made with specific reference to him. Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to ascertain 

the truth of the remaining allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

44. In response to Paragraph 44, Ryan Blake denies the allegations to the extent they 

are made with specific reference to him. Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to ascertain 

the truth of the remaining allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

45. In response to Paragraph 45, Ryan Blake denies the allegations to the extent they 

are made with specific reference to him. Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to ascertain 

the truth of the remaining allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

46. In response to Paragraph 46, Ryan Blake denies the allegations to the extent they 

are made with specific reference to him. Ryan Blake is without information sufficient to ascertain 

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AC Document 21 Filed 05/27/15 Page 6 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1875-AC

DEFENDANT RYAN BLAKE’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS - 7

Lybeck, Pedreira & Justus, PLLC

Fifth Floor – Chase Bank Building

7900 SE 28th Street

Mercer Island, WA 98040-6004

206-230-4255 Fax 206-230-7791

the truth of the remaining allegations of this Paragraph. The allegations of this Paragraph are 

therefore denied.

47. In response to each of the Paragraphs 47 through 76, Ryan Blake denies the 

allegations of these Paragraphs. 

II. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Ryan Blake hereby asserts the following affirmative defenses, which are pled in the 

alternative to the extent they may otherwise be determined mutually exclusive or inconsistent:

1. One or more of plaintiffs’ claims fail to state a valid claim upon which relief can 

be granted.

2. This action is barred by plaintiffs’ misuse of copyright.

3. This action is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. 

4. The damages sought in this action are grossly excessive and disproportionate to 

any actual damages claimed by plaintiffs. The claim for imposition of such damages violates the 

Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted in BMW v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996).

5. Plaintiffs have failed to join one or more indispensable parties to this action.

6. One or more defendants have been improperly joined to this action in violation of 

Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 20 and should be severed and/or dismissed from this action. 

7. The damages which plaintiffs claim are the result of the conduct of third parties 

over which Ryan Blake has no control. 

III. COUNTERCLAIMS

In support of his counterclaims, Ryan Blake alleges as follows:

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AC Document 21 Filed 05/27/15 Page 7 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1875-AC

DEFENDANT RYAN BLAKE’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS - 8

Lybeck, Pedreira & Justus, PLLC

Fifth Floor – Chase Bank Building

7900 SE 28th Street

Mercer Island, WA 98040-6004

206-230-4255 Fax 206-230-7791

Factual Background 

1. For many years, it has been widely understood that an IP address, per se, is not a 

person or legal entity that is capable of committing copyright or trademark infringement. It has 

also been widely understood that the remote detection and identification of an IP address 

correlated with suspected infringement is distinct from the identification of a specific person that 

has committed such infringement. 

2. When an Internet Service Provider (ISP) responds to a typical subpoena request 

for the identity of a “user” to whom it has temporarily assigned an IP address at a particular point 

in time, the ISP usually provides the name of the person or legal entity that, according to the ISP’s 

records, is the listed subscriber for internet service as of the time in question. The ISP typically 

provides no information about what specific person, if any, may have been using file-sharing 

software in connection with a given IP address at any particular point in time. Therefore, 

information provided by an ISP in response to a typical subpoena process such as that employed 

by plaintiffs in this action does not identify a specific person that has committed infringement at 

any particular point in time. 

3. In addition to the fundamental problem with ISP responses to typical subpoena 

processes, there are a variety of other widely known reasons why the remote detection and 

identification of an IP address correlated with suspected infringement does not accurately identify 

a specific person that has committed such infringement. This includes the very real possibility 

that the ISP subscriber’s internet network was accessed by third parties that engaged in infringing 

acts without the subscriber’s knowledge or permission. The use of an ISP subscriber’s internet 

network in a manner that is unauthorized and unknown to the subscriber may be explained by 

numerous possibilities including: wireless “poaching;” “cracking” or circumvention of password 

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AC Document 21 Filed 05/27/15 Page 8 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1875-AC

DEFENDANT RYAN BLAKE’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS - 9

Lybeck, Pedreira & Justus, PLLC

Fifth Floor – Chase Bank Building

7900 SE 28th Street

Mercer Island, WA 98040-6004

206-230-4255 Fax 206-230-7791

protections and other network security measures; network address translation; the use of 

anonymous proxies; and “man-in-the-middle” attacks. 

4. In addition to the numerous technical explanations for possible mis-identification 

of ISP subscribers as infringers, widely available demographic information has for years indicated 

that listed ISP subscribers are relatively unlikely to be responsible for suspected infringement, 

even when such suspected infringement is appropriately correlated with the subscriber’s physical 

address. In these circumstances, demographic information suggests, minor children who are not 

capable of subscribing to ISP services are statistically more likely to have engaged in 

infringement, often without the ISP subscriber’s knowledge or permission. 

5. Plaintiffs, which have allegedly employed an “investigator” in gathering the 

information supporting this action, purports in their Complaint to have wide-ranging knowledge 

about internet communications protocols and the use of peer-to-peer networks. Therefore, 

plaintiffs knew or should have known that they could have wrongfully identified Ryan Blake as 

having committed the infringement alleged by plaintiffs. 

6. Ryan Blake has never viewed plaintiffs’ motion picture, Dallas Buyers Club. He 

has never knowingly downloaded or uploaded a computer file constituting or containing a copy 

of Dallas Buyers Club. He has no specific knowledge that anyone else has done this using his 

internet account or network. Ryan Blake has testified to his innocence under oath, in discovery 

responses, and in countless other communications to plaintiffs’ counsel. Disregarding these 

statements, plaintiffs have persisted in their prosecution of this lawsuit against Ryan Blake.

7. Despite what plaintiffs knew or reasonably should have known about the 

possibility of misidentifying Ryan Blake as an infringer, plaintiffs failed to perform reasonable 

and appropriate further investigation before naming Ryan Blake as a defendant in this lawsuit. 

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AC Document 21 Filed 05/27/15 Page 9 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1875-AC

DEFENDANT RYAN BLAKE’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS - 10

Lybeck, Pedreira & Justus, PLLC

Fifth Floor – Chase Bank Building

7900 SE 28th Street

Mercer Island, WA 98040-6004

206-230-4255 Fax 206-230-7791

8. Plaintiffs’ suit against Ryan Blake was filed and prosecuted without a reasonable 

expectation of success on the merits. Plaintiffs’ suit against Ryan Blake was filed as part of a 

pattern of similar suits filed without regard to the merits of individual claims. Upon information 

and belief, plaintiffs’ suit intends to utilize the burdensome and expensive nature of the litigation 

process to coerce Ryan Blake to pay plaintiffs money in settlement; to intimidate him and others 

so that they might act in a manner which serves plaintiffs’ financial interests; for purposes of 

general deterrence; and/or for other improperly-motivated purposes. 

9. Plaintiffs’ unreasonable acts and omissions have caused Ryan Blake to expend 

unnecessary legal expenses, and have caused him to suffer anxiety and emotional distress. 

Plaintiffs’ threat of massive damages that could mean financial ruin for Ryan Blake is deeply 

troubling and upsetting. 

Count 1

Declaration of Non-Infringement

1. Ryan Blake re-alleges paragraphs 1-9 of his counterclaims, above.

2. Plaintiffs have asserted claims for copyright and trademark infringement against 

Ryan Blake that are false and erroneous. Ryan Blake did not infringe plaintiffs’ copyrights or 

trademarks. 

3. Ryan Blake respectfully requests that the court enter an order declaring that he has 

not infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights or trademarks.

Count 2

Abuse of Legal Process

1. Ryan Blake re-alleges paragraphs 1-9 of his counterclaims, above.

2. Plaintiffs’ filing and continued prosecution of their false and erroneous claims for 

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AC Document 21 Filed 05/27/15 Page 10 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1875-AC

DEFENDANT RYAN BLAKE’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS - 11

Lybeck, Pedreira & Justus, PLLC

Fifth Floor – Chase Bank Building

7900 SE 28th Street

Mercer Island, WA 98040-6004

206-230-4255 Fax 206-230-7791

infringement against Ryan Blake are willful acts not proper in the regular conduct of these 

proceedings. 

3. Plaintiffs’ filing and continued prosecution of their false and erroneous claims for 

infringement against Ryan Blake are aimed at illegitimate and ulterior purposes. Plaintiffs are

using the burdensome and expensive nature of the discovery and litigation processes to coerce 

Ryan Blake to pay plaintiffs money in settlement; to intimidate him and others so that they might 

act in a manner which serves plaintiffs’ financial interests; for purposes of general deterrence; 

and/or for other improperly-motivated purposes. 

4. As a result of the foregoing conduct, Ryan Blake has suffered damages.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Ryan Blake prays for:

a. Dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice;

b. An order that plaintiffs shall be afforded no relief from its complaint herein;

c. A declaration of non-infringement and injunctive relief;

d. For all direct and consequential damages awardable pursuant to the counterclaims;

e. Attorneys’ fees and costs awardable under 17 U.S.C. § 505 and common law;

f. For post-judgment interest on the entire judgment until paid in full; and 

g. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.

V. JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Ryan Blake hereby demands a

trial by jury.

VI. RESERVATIONS

Defendant Ryan Blake reserves the right to assert third-party claims and additional 

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AC Document 21 Filed 05/27/15 Page 11 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1875-AC

DEFENDANT RYAN BLAKE’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS - 12

Lybeck, Pedreira & Justus, PLLC

Fifth Floor – Chase Bank Building

7900 SE 28th Street

Mercer Island, WA 98040-6004

206-230-4255 Fax 206-230-7791

counterclaims in the event that further investigation and discovery support them.

Respectfully submitted this 27th day of May, 2015.

By: _/s/ Benjamin Justus_________ ___ 

 Benjamin R. Justus (admitted pro hac vice)

Lory R. Lybeck, OSB #832761

Attorneys for Defendant Ryan Blake

 Lybeck Pedreira & Justus, PLLC. 

Fifth Floor – Chase Bank Building

 7900 SE 28th Street

 Mercer Island, WA 98040

 (206) 230-4255 /phone

 (206) 230-7791 /fax

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AC Document 21 Filed 05/27/15 Page 12 of 13
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1875-AC

DEFENDANT RYAN BLAKE’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

AND COUNTERCLAIMS - 13

Lybeck, Pedreira & Justus, PLLC

Fifth Floor – Chase Bank Building

7900 SE 28th Street

Mercer Island, WA 98040-6004

206-230-4255 Fax 206-230-7791

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 27th day of May, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing 

Defendant Ryan Blake’s Answer, Affirmative Defenses And Counterclaim with the Clerk of the 

Court for the United States District Court for the District of Oregon by using the CM/ECF system, 

which will cause service to be issued upon all parties of record whom are participants in the system.

Respectfully submitted this __27th__ day of May, 2015.

/s/ Margaret K. Sheridan

Margaret K. Sheridan

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AC Document 21 Filed 05/27/15 Page 13 of 13