Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementinjunctioncopyrightcompliance
plaintiffattorneyinjunctioncopyrightcompliance

Related Cases

International Casings Group, Inc. v. Premium Standard Farms, Inc., 358 F.Supp.2d 863, 56 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 736
View Case »
A.V. Consultants, Inc. v. Barnes, 978 F.2d 996, 24 Fed.R.Serv.3d 293, 15 Employee Benefits Cas. 2957
View Case »
Athridge v. Iglesias, 464 F.Supp.2d 19, 67 Fed.R.Serv.3d 110
View Case »
Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 100 S.Ct. 745, 62 L.Ed.2d 676, 28 Fed.R.Serv.2d 1053, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,279
View Case »
Westfield Insurance Company, v. Estate of McMahan, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 1658952
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. FilmOn.com, Inc., 814 F.3d 91, 2016 Copr.L.Dec. P 30,884, 117 U.S.P.Q.2d 1685, 44 Media L. Rep. 1347, 64 Communications Reg. (P&F) 253

Facts

In 2010, FilmOn launched a service allowing subscribers to stream television stations over the Internet. After being sued for copyright infringement, FilmOn entered into a settlement agreement that included a permanent injunction prohibiting it from distributing copyrighted content. Despite this, FilmOn continued to use its Teleporter technology to stream copyrighted programs, leading the networks to seek a contempt ruling. The district court found FilmOn and its CEO in contempt for violating the injunction and imposed sanctions.

In 2010, FilmOn launched a service that allowed subscribers to use a computer or mobile device to stream an assortment of television stations over the Internet.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion in holding FilmOn and its CEO in contempt for violating the injunction and in imposing sanctions?

Did the district court abuse its discretion when it held FilmOn in contempt, sanctioned FilmOn, and awarded the Plaintiffs attorneys' fees?

Rule

A court may hold a party in contempt if the order is clear and unambiguous, proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and the party has not diligently attempted to comply.

A court may hold a party in contempt if (1) the order the party failed to comply with is clear and unambiguous, (2) the proof of noncompliance is clear and convincing, and (3) the party has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner.

Analysis

The court determined that the injunction was clear and unambiguous, and that FilmOn's actions constituted a violation. The evidence showed that FilmOn did not make diligent efforts to comply with the injunction, especially after the Supreme Court's decision in Aereo III clarified the legal landscape regarding copyright infringement. The court found that FilmOn's continued operation of the Teleporter System was a direct violation of the injunction.

The district court did not err when it determined that the proof of FilmOn's noncompliance was supported by clear and convincing evidence.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that FilmOn and its CEO were in civil contempt and that the sanctions imposed were appropriate.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's decision.

Who won?

The television networks prevailed in the case because the court upheld the injunction and the sanctions against FilmOn for its noncompliance.

The Plaintiffs argue that, after the Supreme Court's decision in Aereo III, FilmOn violated the injunction by using its Teleporter System to broadcast the Plaintiffs' copyrighted content within the Second Circuit.

You must be