N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ANTHONY J. JOHNSON,

Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt,
v. STOR IX, INC ., a

C a l ifornia

C orporation, De fe nda n t-c ounte r-c la im antAppe lle e . No. 16-55439 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-01873-H-B LM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia M arily n L. Huff, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 5, 2017 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON a nd REINHAR

DT, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd STEEH, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED DEC 19 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ge orge C ara m

Ste e h III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa tion.Anthony Johnson (“ Johnson” ) a

ppe a ls the judgm e nt in fa vor of Storix, Inc
. (“ Storix” ) a fte r a

5-da y jury tria l in his c opy

right infringe m e nt a c tion, de nia l of his
sum m ary judgm e nt m otion, de nia l of his m otion for a ne w tria l, a nd a ward of
a ttorne y ’ s fe e s to Storix. W e re vie w a de nia l of sum

m ary judgm e nt de novo. Pe rfe c t 10, Inc . v . C C

Bill L.L.C

. , 488 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th C ir. 2007). For a
sum m ary judgm e nt ruling to be

a ppe a l a ble a fte r a full tria l on the m e rits, the de nia l
m ust involve

an “ e rror of la

w tha t, if not m a de , would ha

ve re quire d the distric t c ourt to gra

nt the m otion.” FBT Produc tions, LLC v . Afte rmath Re c ords , 621 F.3d 958, 963 (9th C ir. 2010). In re vie wing a de nia l of a

m otion for a ne w tria l, we
re vie w inte rpre tations of theC o py right Ac t de novo. Se e Pe rfe c t 10, Inc
. , 488 F.3d
a t 1109. W e re vie w jury

instruc tions de novo for sta te m e nts of la

w a nd unde r an a buse o f disc re tion sta

nda rd with re spe c t to the ir form ulat ion. SEIU v . N

at’l Union of He althc areW

ork e r s , 718 F.3d 1036, 1047 (9th C ir. 2013). W e a lso “ re vie w a distric t c o urt’ s de c ision to gra nt or de ny

a ttorne y ’ s fe e s unde r the C opy right Ac t for a b use of disc re tion.” P e rfe c t 10, Inc
. , 488 F.3d a t 1109. W e AFFIRMin pa rt, RE V E RSE in pa

rt, a nd RE M AND
. On M a rc h 15, 2004, Johnson signe d a 2003 Annua l R e port (“ A nnua l R e port” ) he pe rsona lly dra fte d tha t m e m oria liz e d the tra

nsfe r of “ a ll a s se ts” to

2Storix. The Annua l R e port sta te d: “ All a sse ts from

Storix Softwa

re we re transfe rre d to Storix Inc ., a s of its inc orporat ion a s of Fe brua ry 24, 2003.” Johnson a

rgue s tha t the distric t

c ourt e rre d

in de ny i ng his m otion for
sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd m otion for a

ne w tria l be c a

use the Annua l R e port doe s not satisfy Se c tion 204(a) of the C opy right Ac t a s a m a tte r of la w. The C opy

right Ac t provide s tha

t “ a tra n s fe r of c opy

right owne rship, othe r tha n by ope ra tion of la

w, is not va lid unle ss a

n instrum e nt of c onve y anc e , or a note or m e m oran dum

of the transfe r is in writing a

nd signe d by

the owne r of the rights c onve y e d .” 17 U.S.C . § 204(a ). Se c tion 204(a) c an be satisfie d by an ora l a ssignm e nt tha

t is la te r c onfirm e d in writing. J

ule s J ordan Vide o , Inc . v . 144942 C anada Inc
. , 617 F.3d 1146, 1156 (9th C ir. 2010); Vale nte -K ritze r Vide o v . Pinc k

ne y , 881 F.2d 772, 775 (9th C ir. 1989) (“ If a n ora l tra nsfe r of a c o py right lic e nse is la

te r c onfirm e d in writing, thetra

nsfe r is va lid.” ). The writing doe s not re quire any “ m a gic words . . . R a the r, the pa rtie s’ inte nt a s e vide nc e d by

the writing m

u st de m onstra

te a tra nsfe r of the c opy

right.” Radio Te le v ision Espanola S.A. v . N e w W orld Entm’t, Ltd. , 183 F.3d 922, 927 (9th C ir. 1999) (c iting M e lville B
. Nim m e r & David Nim

m e r, Nim m e r on C opy

right, § 10.03[A] [2] a t 10-37 [“ As with a ll m a tte rs of c ontra c t la w, the e sse nc e of the inquiry he re is to e ffe c tuate the inte n t of the pa rtie s.” ] ). As suc h, the writing doe s 3not “ have to be the M a gna C arta ; a one -line pro form a

sta te m e nt will do.” Id. (c ita tions omitte d ); se e also SCO Grp., Inc
. v . N ov e ll, Inc
. , 578 F.3d 1201, 1212 (10th C ir. 2009) (“ Se c tion 204(a), by its te rm s, im

pose s only the re quire m e nt tha t a c opy right tra nsfe r be in writing a

nd signe d by

the pa rtie s from whom

the c opy right is tra nsfe rre d; it doe s not on its fac e im p o se any he ighte ne d burde n of c l arity or pa rtic u la rity .” ). The Annua l R e port qua l ifie d a s a “ n ote or m e m orandum ” tha t wa s signe d by Johnson a nd m e m oria liz e d a

tra nsfe r of a sse ts. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 204(a ). C o ntra ry to Johnson’ s a sse rtions, theform of a signa ture and c onte m

p orane ity of the writing
are n ot dispositive . First, Se c tion 204(a) doe s not ne c e ssita te the form of the signa ture to be in the tra

n sfe ror’ s pe rsona l c a

pa c ity . The purpose of Se c tion 204(a )’ s writing re quire m e nt is to pre ve nt ina dve rte nt tra nsfe rs a nd fra udule nt c la im s of c opy

right owne rship. Magnuson v . Vide o Ye ste r y e ar , 85 F.3d 1424, 1428-29 (9th C ir. 1996). Tha t c onc e rn is virtua lly

a bse nt whe n Johnson him se lf
a dm itte d to writing a

nd signing the

Annua l R e port tha

t m e m oria liz e d

a tra nsfe r of
a t le a st som e a sse ts to his own wholly -owne d c om

p a ny . Johnson c onc e de d

tha t a transfe r of som e a sse ts did oc c ur, inc luding c o m pute rs, de sks, supplie s, a

nd

“ whate v e r wa s ne c e ssa

ry to c ontinue doing busine s s a s Storix, thesa m e thing tha

t I
wa s doing a s Storix Softwa re .”
4Sim ila rly , K onigsbe rg Inte rn. Inc . v . Ric e , 16 F.3d 355 (9th C i r. 1994) doe s not re quire a

c onte m pora ne ous writing unde

r the s e fa c ts. Magnuson , 85 F.3d a t 1429 n.1 (sta

ting tha t the issue in K

onigsbe rg wa s ta

rdine ss, not c onte m p orane ousne ss, a

nd “ to the e xte nt tha

t som e la ngua ge in K

onigsbe rg m ight be inte rpre te d a s re quiring a c onte m pora ne ous writing e ve n unde r the fa c ts of this
c a se , it is c le arly

dic ta .” ); s e e also Bare

foot Arc hite c t, Inc . v . Bunge , 632 F.3d 822, 828 (3d C ir. 2011) (“ [T] e xt of the sta tute . . . c le arly

a llows for a

subse que n t writing to e ffe c tuate an e arlie r ora l tra nsfe r, it doe s not spe c ify

a tim e pe riod during whic h the writing m

ust be c onsum

m a te d.” ). Unlike the writing in K onigsbe rg , the Annua l R e port provide d a “ re fe re nc e point” to the e x a c t da te of the tra

nsfe r. Se e id. (noting tha

t the proble m in K

onigsbe rg wa s tha t “ it wa s ‘ not the ty

p e of w riting
c onte m p late d by [S] e c tion 204’ ” be c a use it did not provide

a “ re fe re nc e point for the p artie s’ [] dispute s” ). Johnson a lso a

rgue s tha t his m otion for a

ne wtria l should ha

ve be e n grante d be c a use the inte rpre tation of Se c tion 204(a) wa s not a n issue for the jury . B ut for Johnson’ s a sse rtion tha

t the te rm “ a ll a sse ts” did not inc lude the c opy right to SB A, the A nnua l R e port sa

tisfie d Se c tion 204(a)’ s writing re quire m e nt. B oth pa rtie s offe re d e xtrinsic e vide nc e to prove the m e a n ing of “ a ll a sse ts.” Se e 2 Patry on C opy right § 5:111 (“

Afte r-the -fa c t writings should se rve . . . a s a

re fe re n c e point, a
5springboa

rd from whe nc e the pa

rtie s’ a c tua l inte nt m ay

be ve rifie d . . . Extrinsic
e vide nc e of the pa

rtie s’ inte n t m ay

pla y an im porta nt role .” ). Extrinsic e vide nc e that is offe re d to inte rpre t the te rm s of a writing a re for the jury
. C

ac hil De he Band of W intun Indians of C

olusa Indian C

mty . v . C alifornia , 618 F.3d 1066, 1077 (9th C ir. 2010) (W

he n the re is “ e xtrinsic e vide nc e supporting c om p e t ing inte rpre tations of am biguous c ontra c t la

ngua ge the c o urt m ay not use the e v ide nc e to inte rpre t the
c ontra c t a s a m a tte r of la

w, but m ust inste a d

re nde r the e vide nc e to the fa c tfinde r for e v a luation of its c re dibility ” ); se e W e lle s v . Turne r Entm’t C

o. , 503 F.3d 728, 737 (9th C i r. 2007) (re m an d ing to distric t c ourt be c a use the inte ntion of pa

rtie s’
c opy right tra nsfe r wa s am

biguous, “ a

n d be c a use the c ontra c t’ s inte rpre tation m ay turn on the c re dibility

of e xtrinsic e vide nc e .” ). Thus, the jury wa s prope rly ta ske d with inte rpre ting the te rm a t issue
. Give n the fore g o ing, the jury instruc tions c orre c tly sta te d tha t the te rm “ a ll
a sse ts” c ould inc lude c opy right owne rship a

nd tha t the jury c ould use e xtrinsic
e vide nc e to inte rpre t the m e aning of the te rm . The re fore , the distric t c o urt did not
e rr in de ny ing Johnson’ s m o tion for a ne wtria l on the ba sis tha t the jury instruc tions we re an inc o rre c t sta te m e nt of la

w. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in a

warding fe e s to Storix be c a use it ga ve “ ‘ substa

ntia l we ight’ to the obje c t ive re a sona ble ne ss of [Johnson’ s]
6position but did not re ly e xc lusive ly

on it, a n d thus theSupre m e C o urt’ s re c e nt de c ision in K

irtsae ng v . J

ohn W ile y & Sons, Inc
. doe s not re quire a diffe re nt re sult.” C

hoy c ev . SF Bay

Are a Inde

p. Me dia C

tr. , 669 F.App’ x 863, 865 (9th C ir. 2016). The distric t c ourt prope rly re lie d on othe r fa c tors tha t outwe i ghe d its findings tha

t Johnson’ s c la im s we re not obje c tive ly unre a sona

ble or frivolous: Johnson’ s m otiva

tion, thede gre e of De fe nda nt Storix’ s suc c e ss, a

nd the ne e d to
a dva nc e c onside ra tions of c om p e nsation a

nd de t e rre nc e . S

e e Ome ga S.A. v . C

ostc o W hole sale C om. , 776 F.3d 692, 695-96 (9th C ir. 2015). W hile the distric t c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion in c hoosing to a ward fe e s to Storix, we find tha

t the a m o unt of the award wa s unre a sona ble . “ E ve n though a distric t c o urt ha s disc re tion to c hoose how it c a lc ulat e s fe e s, we have sa id m any tim e s tha t it a buse s tha t disc re tion whe n it use s a m e c ha nic a l or form

ula ic a pproa c h that re s ults in a

n unre a sona

b le re ward.” In reBlue tooth He adse t Prod. Liab. Litig. , 654 F.3d 935, 944 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita tions a nd quota tions omitte d); s e e also Fox
v . Vic e , 563 U.S. 826, 839 (2011) (“ The e sse ntia l goa l in shifting fe e s ... is to do rough justic e , not to a c hie ve a uditing pe rfe c tion.” ). B e c a use Johnson’ s c la im s we re ne ithe r unre a sona

ble nor frivolous, the

am o unt of $543,704 wa s e xc e ssive
. Se e K irtsae ng v . J

ohn W i l e y & Sons, Inc
. , 136 S.C t . 1979, 1988 (2016) (holding that c ourts m u st give substa

ntia l we ight to the

obje c tive re a sona

ble ne ss of losing
7pa

rty ’ s position whe

n a warding fe e s). Furthe r, Johnson, who is now pro se , is a n individua l pla intiff, ra

the r tha n a nothe r c om

p a ny . S e e Lie b v . Topstone

Indus., Inc
. , 788 F.2d 151, 156 (3d C ir. 1986) (“ T he re lative fina n c ia l stre ngth of the pa rtie s is a va lid c onside ra tion” in de te rm ining “ w hat a m ount is re a s ona

b le ” ).

“ W hile we do not pa ss judgm e n t on wha t the award should be , § 505 de m a nds tha t it be re a s ona

b le .” W o odhav e n Home

s & Re a lty

, Inc
. v . Hotz , 396 F.3d 822, 824 (7th C ir. 2005) (quota

tions omi tte d) ; se e also Ye llow Page s Photos, Inc . v . Ziploc al, LP , 846 F.3d 1159, 1165 (11th C ir. 2017) (“ At the e n d of the da y , the substa ntive re a s ona

ble ne ss of the am ount a

w arde d is the touc h stone of our
e va luation of a

distric t c ourt’ s a

ward of fe e s a

nd c osts.” ). W e the re fore re v e rse the fe e a ward and re m an d to the distric t c ourt to re c onside r the am ount. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D. Ea c h pa rty sha l l be ar its own c osts.

8