Case Name: ADOBE SYSTEMS INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony KORNRUMPF, aka Tony Kornrumpf; Hoops Enterprise, LLC, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-02
Citations: 577 F. App'x 684
Docket Number: No. 12-16616
Parties: ADOBE SYSTEMS INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony KORNRUMPF, aka Tony Kornrumpf; Hoops Enterprise, LLC, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 577
Pages: 684–685

Head Matter:
ADOBE SYSTEMS INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony KORNRUMPF, aka Tony Kornrumpf; Hoops Enterprise, LLC, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 12-16616.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 12, 2014.
Filed June 2, 2014.
J. Andrew Coombs, Nicole L. Drey, Annie S. Wang. J. Andrew Coombs, A P.C., Glendale, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Joseph Gratz, Alex Feerst, Mark A. Lemley, Esquire, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, CA, John McCurdy, II, McCur-dy & Leibl, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: THOMAS, FISHER and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Defendants Anthony Kornrumpf and Hoop Enterprises, LLC appeal judgment in favor of plaintiff Adobe Systems Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment to Adobe on the defendants' first sale doctrine defense, and we affirm.
The district court did not err in its application of Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102, 1111 (9th Cir.2010), to Dell's and HP's acquisition of copies of Adobe software products. The original equipment manufacturer contracts specified that Dell and HP were granted licenses, significantly restricted Dell's and HP's ability to transfer the software and imposed notable use restrictions. A transfer of software products under these circumstances constitutes a license rather than a sale. See Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1159 (9th Cir.2011); MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm't, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, 938-39 (9th Cir.2010), as amended; Vernor, 621 F.3d at 1111-12.
The defendants seek to distinguish these cases on grounds not presented to the district court. Because the defendants raise these arguments for the first time on appeal, we decline to reach them. See AlohaCare v. Hawaii, Dep't. of Human Servs., 572 F.3d 740, 744 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.