Case of the Day: Bodyguard Productions v. Musante

The case of the day is Bodyguard Productions, Inc. v. Musante (D. Hawaii 2020). Bodyguard owned the copyright for a movie called The Hitman’s Bodyguard. It alleged that Alex Musante had infringed the copyright. The claim was that Musante had streamed the movie using a BitTorrent client. In an amended complaint, filed apparently after having secured Musante’s cooperation, Bodyguard alleged that several unknown defendants had induced the infringement by making a BitTorrent client called Popcorn Time available on their websites. It moved for leave to transmit letters of requests to the central authorities in the Netherlands, Australia, the UK, and Iceland directed at several internet companies and apparently aimed at uncovering the identity of the registrant of the domain names used by the infringers or of the operators of the servers associated with the relevant IP addresses. The judge denied the request on the grounds that Bodyguard had not sufficiently shown that the Doe defendants were persons who were subject to suit or that they were subject to personal jurisdiction in Hawaii. (more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Bodyguard Productions v. Musante

Case of the Day: Finjan v. Zscaler

The case of the day is Finjan, Inc. v. Zscaler, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2019). It’s from early in 2019, but I missed it when it was issued. The case was a patent dispute. Finjan, a computer security company, sought the production of emails from Tim Warner, a British citizen living in the UK. The emails were important, Finjan said, because Warner, its previous sales director who now headed UK sales for the defnedant, had “intimate knowledge” of the patented technology and “could explain [it] inside out.” Zscaler argued that it could not produce the emails, because production would violate the GDPR. It claimed that Finjan’s proposed search terms were overbroad and would require the production of unnecessary personal data, which would have to be anonymized or redacted. Zscaler argued that Fujian should first have to try to obtain the emails from custodians in the United States, that the protective order would have to be amended, and that in any even an “attorneys’ eyes only” production would have satisfied the GDPR. (more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Finjan v. Zscaler