T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 1 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T V A L U E S E L L I N G A S S O C I A T E S , L L C , a C al i fo rn i a l i m i t ed l i ab i l i ty co m p an y, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. K E V I N T E M P L E , a n in d iv id u a l; EN TERPRI SE SELLI N G G RO U P, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 56229 D. C . No . 3 : 0 9 - c v - 0 1 4 9 3 - J M- MDD ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J e f f r e y T . M i l l e r , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 8, 2013 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , R A W L IN S O N , an d B Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED MA Y30 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 A pp el l antV al ueS el l i ng A ss oci at es , L L C (V S A ) app ea l s the di stri ct c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f

its m o tio n to v a c a te , m o d if y , o rc o rr e c t a n a rb itr a tio n a w a r d . W e a f f i r m. 1. W e m a y va c a t e a n a w a r d unde rthe F e de r a l A rbi tr a t i on A c tonl y i f the aw ard “ fai l s t o d raw i t s essen ce fro m th e ag reem en t , ” o r “ ex h i b i t s a m an i fest di sr egar d o f l aw . ” B i l l er v. T o yo ta Mo to r C o rp . , 668 F . 3d 655, 665 ( 9th C i r . 2012) ( c ita tio n s a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . 2. V S A po i nt s t o n othi ng i n the arbi tra t i on re cord thatthe di stri ctcourt s houl d ha ve r e vi e w e d t o w a rr a ntva c a tur , m odi f i c a t i on, orc orr e c t i on of the a rbi tr a t i on a w a r d. I n ke e pi ng w i th the i ntr i ns i c /e xtr i ns i c t e s ts e touti n M a tte l, I nc . v . M GA E nte r tai nm e nt , 6 1 6 F .3 d 9 0 4 , 9 1 3 - 1 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) , as am ended , the arbi tra t or det erm i ned thatthe si m i l arcom po nent s of the V al ue S el l i ng P rogram ( V S P ) a nd the E nt e rpr i s e S e l l i ng P r ogr a m ( E S P ) w e r e note nt i t l e d t o c opy r i ght p r o te c tio n a n d , a lte rn a tiv e ly , w e r e n e ith e r“s u b s ta n tia lly s im ila r ,” n o r“v ir tu a lly i d en t i cal . ” T h ese l eg al co n cl u si o n s, ev en i f erro n eo u s, d o n o tev i n ce “ m an i fest d is r e g a r d ” o f

th e la w . M

a tth e w s v . N

a t’ l Fo o tb a ll L e a g u e M

g m t. C o u n c il , 688 F . 3 d 1 1 0 7 , 1 1 1 5 (9 th C i r. 2 0 1 2 ) (“ F o r an arb i trat o r’ s aw ard t o b e i n m an i fest3

di sr egar d o f the l aw , i tm ustbe cl ea r f rom the re cord thatthe arbi tra t or re cogn i ze d th e ap p lic ab le la w a n d th e n ig n o r e d it. . . .” ) ( c ita tio n a n d a lte r a tio n o m itte d ) . 3. T he agree m ent s i n thi s c as e c om pel l ed arbi tra t i on of “ [a ] ny di sput e, c o n tr o v e r s y , o rq u e s t i o n a r i s i n g u n d e r , o u to f o rr e l a t i n g t o ” th e p u r c h a s e o f V SA a n d th e s u b s e q u e n t te r m in a tio n o f T e m p le ’s r ig h ts to m a rk e t V S A p r o d u c ts . I n its s u b mi s s i o n t o th e a rb i tr a t o r , V SA a l l e g e d th a tTe mp l e ’ s ESP i n f r i n g e d V SA co p yri g h t s. A c c or di ngl y , the a rbi tr a t ora c t e d w i thi n hi s a uthor i ty w he n he addres se d cop yr i gh ti nfri ng em ent , i ncl ud i ng w hether the V S P com po nent s w er e c o p y r ig h tab le . See Schoend uve C orp. v. L ucent T ec h. , Inc. , 442 F . 3d 727 , 7 3 2 ( 9 th C i r. 20 06 ) ( ho l di ng thatan “ arbi tra t or’ s autho ri ty i s det erm i ned b y the contra ct r e qui r i ng a rbi tr a t i on a s w e l l a s by the pa r t i e s ’ de f i ni t i on of the i s s ue s t o be subm i tt ed i n the subm i ss i on agre em ent ”) . 4. O ur po w ert o m od i fyor corr ec tthe arbi tra t i on aw ar d i s c i rc um sc ri bed by 9 U . S . C . § 1 1(b), w hi ch prov i des thata c ou rt“ m ay ” m od i fyor corr ec tan aw ar d w h e n “th e a rb itr a to r s h a v e a w a r d e d u p o n a m a tte rn o t s u b m itte d to th e m , u n le s s it i s a m a tt e rn o ta f

f e c t i n g th e m e r i t s o f

th e d e c i s i o n u p o n th e m a tt e rs u b m i tt e d . ” As pr e vi ous l y di s c us s e d, the a rbi tr a t or ’ s rul i ng a ddr e s s i ng c opy r i ghtpr ot e c t i on f or4

V S P com po nent s w as w i thi n the sc op e of the m att ersubm i tt ed t o h i m . T here fore , w e m a y n o t m o d if

y th is p o r tio n o f

th e a w a r d . See 9 U .S .C . § 1 1 ( b ) . AF F I RME D.