Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/241253094/Ace-Arts-LLC-v-SonyATV-Music-2
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:16:43+00:00

Document:
facts and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party."
478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986) (quoted in Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
reference" are "deemed part of the pleading and may be considered" in deciding the motion.
for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is not an occasion for the court to make findings of fact."
Roth, 489 F.3d at 509.
As set forth above, the following facts are taken from the Amended Complaint ("Am.
not consider them for the truth of the matters asserted. Roth, 489 F.3d at 509.
Your Man." Am. Com pl. iJ 49.
sublicensing agreements between SATV and an entity alleged to be Roundhill's predecessor. See Dkt. No. 33, at 9.
motion picture The Beatles: The First US Visit, which Apple released in 1998. See id. 32-39.
In 2009, the Tape was acquired by production company WPMC Limited ("WPMC").
to the D.C. Concert as well as expert commentary on the cultural significance of the event." Id.
Plaintiff here, was granted distribution rights to The Lost Concert by the Producers.
consider this statement only for its existence, and not for its truth. See Roth, 489 F.3d at 511.
synchronization license and instead granted Apple an exclusive synchronization license. Id.
premiere, scheduling the re-rerelease of"Yellow Submarine" at the Ziegfeld on May 5, 2012.
distribution of the film was being planned. 74-75.
violate rights owned by SATV and Apple, and to demand that no exhibition of the film occur.
filed a Defence, Buckley Deel., Ex. E.
publications of the Tape ... have carried the Songs into the public domain," Am. Com pl. 119.
competition, and violation of New York General Business Law 349(a).
(S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2013) (citing, inter alia, Landis v. N Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)).
court's general obligation to exercise its jurisdiction." Id. at 95; see, e.g., Kitaru Innovations Inc.
"lesser intrusion on the principle of obligatory jurisdiction" than dismissal or indefinite stay. Id.
these circumstances, the Court will neither dismiss nor stay this case in favor of the UK Action.
therefore constitute a violation or infringement of any copyrights to the songs," Am. Compl.
state a claim for declaratory relief." Apple Mem. 18.
dismiss with respect to this claim.
the rule ofreason." Id. 94.
unreasonable restraint of trade either per se or under the rule ofreason." Tops Mias., Inc. v.
Noerr-Pennington Doctrine. The Court addresses each of these arguments in turn.
trade trigger per se liability under Section 1. Intellective, Inc. v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins.
competition-referred to as 'horizontal restraints '-are classic examples of per se violations,"
'vertical restraints'-are analyzed under the rule ofreason." Integrated Sys. & Power, Inc. v.
existence of a horizontal agreement between competitors SA TV and Apple. See Pl. Opp. 16.
that the Court does not accept as true on a motion to dismiss." Integrated Sys. & Power, 713 F.
trigger per se review," Meredith Corp., 2014 WL 812795, at *20 (finding that "vertical"
Section 1, the Court proceeds to assess the adequacy of the pleadings under the rule of reason.
market. Apple Mem. 13. The Court agrees.
Health Educ., Inc., 812 F. Supp. 387, 392 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)).
under the Rule of Reason.
SATV Mem. 15-16, or to determine whether the UK Action falls into the "sham litigation"
exception to that doctrine, see Pl. Opp. 22-26; SA TV Reply 4-6.
the Rule of Reason. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed in its entirety.
[SATV's] copyrights and demanding that Screenvision not exhibit the Documentary." Am.
the performance of the contract." Id. 127.
(S.D.N.Y. 2011) (quoting Berman v. Suga LLC, 580 F. Supp. 2d 191, 202 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)).
No. 06-cv-6570 (RJS), 2008 WL 4219073, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2008) (quoting O'Brien v.
Nat'! Prop. Analyst Partners, 719 F. Supp. 222, 2209 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)).
449 F.3d 388, 402 (2d Cir. 2006) (finding that allegation that third party had "walked away"
breach" of the contract. Lennon, 63 F. Supp. 2d at 433.
SA TV "used 'wrongful means' to induce [Screenvision] to breach the contract."' Orange Cnty.
showing that SATV "has no belief in the merit" of its copyright claims. Cf RFP LLC, 788 F.
beginning with the initial discussions over synchronization rights in 2010, see Am. Compl.
communicated its claims to Screenvision.
substantial part of any of the musical compositions" at issue in this case, Am. Am. Compl., Ex.
conclude that the claim must be dismissed.
distributors and exhibitors of [The Lost Concert]." Am. Compl. il 136.
difference reflects the "[g]reater protection [that] is accorded an interest in an existing contract,"
in contrast with "the less substantive, more speculative interest in a prospective relationship." Id.
(quoting Guard-Life Corp., 50 N.Y.2d at 191).
see Lions Gate Entm 't Corp. v. Icahn, No. 10-cv-8169 (HB), 2011 WL 1217245, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.
or used improper means") (citing Carvel Corp. v. Noonan, 350 F.3d 6, 17 (2d Cir. 2003)).
Apple's involvement is insufficiently alleged).
effort." !TD Ltd., 9 N.Y.3d at 477 (quoting Electrolux, 6 N.Y.2d at 567; Maison Prunier v.
Prunier's Restaurant & Cafe, 159 Misc. 551, 553 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1936)).
regarding "(t]he trend of the law ... to extend the scope of the doctrine of unfair competition,"
ITC Ltd., 9 N.Y.3d at 478 (quoting Vaudable v. Montmartre, Inc., 20 Misc.2d 757, 759 (N.Y.
expansion of unfair competition claims beyond palming off and misappropriation, see PI. Opp.
36 (arguing that there are more than two theories of unfair competition recognized in New York).
Songs in North America." Am. Compl. 154.
(quoting Maurizio v. Goldsmith, 230 F.3d 518, 521 (2d Cir. 2000)).
undisputedly a business in the film distribution industry, and not a consumer. See Am. Compl.
Auctions, LLC, -- F. Supp. 2d, No. 13-cv-2527 (JGK), 2014 WL 904451, at *15 (S.D.N.Y.
contract dispute, unique to the parties" that does "not fall within the ambit of the statute,"
claim must accordingly be dismissed.
a result of Defendants' conduct, consumers were "deprived" of access to The Lost Concert. Pl.
consumers, as they must have been in order for Plaintiffs claim to be cognizable under 349.
bear on a consumer's decision to participate in a particular transaction," 953 N.Y.S.2d at 102.
competition, and violation of New York General Business Law 349.
other information that the parties believe may assist the Court in resolving this action.
This resolves Dkt. Nos. 41, 45.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.