Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`No. 18-20350
`
`In The United States Court of Appeals
`For The Fifth Circuit
`
`ENERGY INTELLIGENCE GROUP, INCORPORATED;
`ENERGY INTELLIGENCE GROUP (UK) LIMITED,
`Plaintiffs – Appellants Cross-Appellees,
`
`V.
`
`KAYNE ANDERSON CAPITAL ADVISORS, L.P.; K.A. FUND ADVISORS, L.L.C.,
`Defendants – Appellees Cross-Appellants.
`
`CONS W/18-20615
`
`
`
`ENERGY INTELLIGENCE GROUP, INCORPORATED;
`ENERGY INTELLIGENCE GROUP (UK) LIMITED,
`Plaintiffs – Appellants,
`
`V.
`
`KAYNE ANDERSON CAPITAL ADVISORS, L.P.; K.A. FUND ADVISORS, L.L.C.,
`Defendants – Appellees.
`
`On Appeal from The United States District Court
`for the Southern District of Texas; Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-01903
`Honorable Sim Lake, District Judge, presiding
`
`APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE AND REPLY BRIEF
`
`POWLEY & GIBSON P.C.
`Robert L. Powley
`304 Hudson St., Suite 305
`New York, NY 10013
`(212) 226-5054
`(212) 226-5085 – Fax
`
`NATHAN SOMMERS JACOBS
`George R. Gibson
`2800 Post Oak Blvd., 61st Fl.
`Houston, TX 77056
`(713) 960-0303
`(713) 892-4800 – Fax
`
`BECK REDDEN LLP
`David M. Gunn
`1221 McKinney St., Ste. 4500
`Houston, TX 77010-2010
`(713) 951-3700
`(713) 951-3720 – Fax
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
`ENERGY INTELLIGENCE GROUP, INC. AND ENERGY INTELLIGENCE GROUP (UK) LIMITED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................................. vi
`
`Statement of the Issues on Cross Appeal ................................................................... 1
`
`Statement of the Case ................................................................................................. 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Preliminary Statement ........................................................................... 3
`
`Relevant Facts and Procedural History ................................................. 5
`
`A.
`
`EIG Attached Its Copyright Registrations to Its
`Operative Pleadings .................................................................... 5
`
`B. Kayne Failed in its Responsive Pleadings to Allege
`Any Inaccuracies in EIG’s Registrations, Knowing or
`Otherwise .................................................................................... 5
`
`C.
`
`Judge Lake Granted Summary Judgment Rejecting
`Kayne’s Unclean Hands Defense ................................................ 6
`
`D. Kayne Formally Stipulated to Registration Validity .................. 7
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`The District Court Determined That Kayne’s § 411(b)
`Motion Was Without Merit ......................................................... 8
`
`Kayne Tried Again to Rescind Its Stipulation of
`Registration Validity but the District Court Entered
`the Stipulation as Part of the Official Joint Pretrial
`Order ........................................................................................... 9
`
`The District Court Declined to Give Kayne’s
`Supplemental Instruction on General Limits of
`Copyright Protection .................................................................10
`
`H. Kayne Did Not File a Renewed JMOL Motion on
`DMCA Liability After Trial ......................................................11
`
`I.
`
`The District Court Denied Kayne’s Motion for
`Attorneys’ Fees Under Rule 68 .................................................12
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`
`
`
`Summary of the Argument .......................................................................................12
`
`Argument..................................................................................................................15
`
`I.
`
`The Copyright Act Does Not Allow Mitigation as a
`Complete Legal Defense to Claims for Statutory Damages ...............15
`
`A.
`
`The Standard of Review is De Novo .........................................15
`
`B. Kayne Has Not Identified Any Authority Where the
`Mitigation Doctrine was Applied to Reduce a
`Plaintiff’s Statutory Damage Award Below the
`Statutory Minimum ...................................................................16
`
`C. Kayne Ignores the Deterrent Purpose of Statutory
`Damages ....................................................................................19
`
`D. Affirmative Defenses that Defeat Liability Do Not
`Conflict with the Statutory Damage Provisions of the
`Copyright Act ............................................................................21
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Kayne’s Mitigation Theory Conflicts with the Notice
`Provisions of 17 U.S.C. § 401 ...................................................23
`
`Entering the Statutory Minimum Damage Award
`Would Violate EIG’s Seventh Amendment Right to a
`Jury Trial ...................................................................................27
`
`The Mitigation Doctrine Does Not Apply to Future Acts of
`Infringement ........................................................................................28
`
`In the Alternative, the Mitigation Doctrine Cannot Prevent
`EIG From Recovering Statutory Damages for Infringements
`Occurring in the Three Years Immediately Prior to Filing
`Suit .......................................................................................................30
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV. EIG Has Not Waived Its DMCA Claims ............................................34
`
`V. Kayne’s Unclean Hands Defense Has No Basis In Law.....................36
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`
`
`
`A. Kayne Raises Its Copyright Misuse Arguments for the
`First Time on Appeal ................................................................ 36
`
`B.
`
`Copyright Misuse Is Not Applicable to the
`Allegations Underlying Kayne’s Mitigation and
`Unclean Hands Defenses .......................................................... 37
`
`VI. Kayne Intentionally Removed EIG’s Copyright
`Management Information .................................................................... 41
`
`A.
`
`EIG’s Unique Reference Numbers Are “Copyright
`Management Information” Under the DMCA .......................... 41
`
`B. Kayne Intentionally Removed or Altered EIG’s CMI
`With Knowledge That It Would Induce, Enable,
`Facilitate or Conceal Copyright Infringement .......................... 43
`
`C.
`
`EIG’s CMI Was “Conveyed in Connection” with
`EIG’s Copyrighted OD Publications ........................................ 44
`
`VII. The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Refusing
`Kayne’s Proposed Jury Instruction on Non-Protectable
`Elements of a Work ............................................................................. 46
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Standard of Review is Abuse of Discretion ....................... 46
`
`The Requested Instruction Did Not Concern an
`Important Point at Trial ............................................................. 47
`
`The Requested Instruction Was Not a “Substantially
`Correct Statement of Law” ....................................................... 48
`
`VIII. Kayne Is Not Entitled to Referral Of EIG’s Registrations To
`The Register Of Copyrights ................................................................ 49
`
`A. Kayne Has Waived Any Arguments As to The
`Validity of EIG’s Copyrights .................................................... 49
`
`B.
`
`The District Court Properly Denied Kayne’s § 411(b)
`Motion Without Referring it to the Register of
`Copyrights ................................................................................. 51
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`EIG Properly Registered Its Copyrights Using Form
`G/DN .........................................................................................54
`
`Form G/DN Registrants Are Not Required To
`Disclose All Information in 17 U.S.C. § 409 ............................56
`
`EIG Did Not Submit Inaccurate Information By
`Leaving The “Compilation” Box Unchecked ...........................58
`
`Kayne Failed to Put Forth Any Evidence Establishing
`That EIG Knowingly Submitted False Information to
`the Copyright Office .................................................................59
`
`IX. Kayne Is Not Entitled To Recover Its Attorney’s Fees Under
`Rule 68.................................................................................................60
`
`Conclusion ...............................................................................................................63
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................64
`
`Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................65
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`AG Acceptance Corp. v. Veigel,
`564 F.3d 695 (5th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................37
`
`Agence France Presse v. Morel,
`769 F. Supp. 2d 295 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ..................................................................44
`
`Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Techs., Inc.,
`166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................37
`
`Am. Soc. of Composers, Authors, & Publishers v. Pataki,
`930 F. Supp. 873 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) .......................................................................32
`
`Baisden v. I’m Ready Prods., Inc.,
`693 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................22
`
`BanxCorp v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`723 F. Supp. 2d 596 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) ..................................................................45
`
`BNSF Ry Co. v. Altom Transp., Inc.,
`777 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2015)......................................................................... 49, 50
`
`Boisson v. Banian Ltd.,
`221 F.R.D. 378 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) .................................................................. 61, 62
`
`Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Xanthas,
`855 F.2d 233 (5th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................19
`
`Bruce v. Weekly World News, Inc.,
`203 F.R.D. 51 (D. Mass. 2001)..................................................................... 61, 62
`
`Carley v. Crest Pumping Techs., L.L.C.,
`890 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................41
`
`Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co.,
`342 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) ..............................................................................62
`
`Chi-Boy Music v. Charlie Club, Inc.,
`930 F.2d 1224 (7th Cir. 1991) ..............................................................................21
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`Crossman v. Marcoccio,
`806 F.2d 329 (1st Cir. 1986) ................................................................................61
`
`Deffenbaugh-Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`188 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................35
`
`DeliverMed Holdings, LLC v. Schaltenbrand,
`734 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2013)........................................................................... 8, 51
`
`Design Basics LLC v. Lexington Homes,
`858 F.3d 1093 (7th Cir. 2017) ..............................................................................39
`
`Design Basics, LLC v. Petros Homes, Inc.,
`240 F. Supp. 3d 712 (N.D. Ohio 2017) ................................................................39
`
`DSC Commc’ns Corp. v. DGI Techs., Inc.,
`81 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 1996)........................................................................... 22, 38
`
`E.E.O.C. v. Bailey Ford, Inc.,
`26 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 1994) ..................................................................................61
`
`Energy Intelligence Grp., Inc. v. CHS McPherson Refinery, Inc.,
`304 F. Supp. 3d 1051 (D. Kan. 2018) .......................................................... passim
`
`Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
`499 U.S. 340 (1991) ...................................................................................... 10, 47
`
`Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.,
`523 U.S. 340 (1998) .............................................................................................28
`
`Ford Motor Co. v. Dallas Power & Light Co.,
`499 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1974)......................................................................... 21, 28
`
`Frank Betz Assoc., Inc. v. J.O. Clark Constr., LLC,
`No. 3:08-cv-00159, 2010 WL 2253541 (M.D. Tenn. May 30, 2010) .......... 18, 26
`
`Graper v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co.,
`756 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................31
`
`Guzman v. Hacienda Records & Recording Studio, Inc.,
`808 F.3d 1031 (5th Cir. 2015) ..............................................................................51
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`Harbor Motor Co., Inc. v. Arnell Chevrolet-Geo, Inc.,
`265 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2001)......................................................................... 61, 62
`
`Hescott v. City of Saginaw,
`757 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2014)......................................................................... 61, 62
`
`In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig.,
`191 F. Supp. 2d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2002) ...............................................................38
`
`Interscope Records v. Time Warner, Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-1662, 2010 WL 11505708 (C.D. Cal. June 28, 2010) ........................32
`
`J&J Sports Prods., Inc. v. Willie Ray’s Private Room, Inc.,
`No. 3:16-cv-1206, 2017 WL 514422 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2017) ..........................17
`
`Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Izalco, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-3696, 2017 WL 3130581 (S.D. Tex. July 24, 2017) ..........................17
`
`John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. DRK Photo,
`882 F.3d 394 (2d Cir. 2018) .................................................................................27
`
`Jordan v. Time, Inc.,
`111 F.3d 102 (11th Cir. 1997) ..............................................................................61
`
`Jowers v. Lincoln Elec. Co.,
`617 F.3d 346 (5th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................15
`
`Kanida v. Gulf Coast Med. Pers. LP,
`363 F.3d 568 (5th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................46
`
`Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Leadership Software, Inc.,
`12 F.3d 527 (5th Cir. 1994) ..................................................................................47
`
`Kona Tech. Corp. v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co.,
`225 F.3d 595 (5th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................49
`
`L.A. Westerman Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co.,
`249 U.S. 100 (1919) .............................................................................................22
`
`Lasercomb Am., Inc. v. Reynolds,
`911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................37
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`
`
`
`Le v. Univ. of Pa.,
`321 F.3d 403 (3d Cir. 2003) .................................................................................61
`
`Leegin Creative Leather Prod., Inc. v. Belts by Nadim, Inc.,
`316 F. App’x 573 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................21
`
`LeMaire v. Louisiana Dep’t of Transp. & Dev.,
`480 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................37
`
`Lennar Homes Of Texas Sales and Marketing, Ltd. v. Perry Homes, LLC,
`117 F. Supp. 3d 913 (S.D. Tex. 2015) .................................................................52
`
`Leveyfilm, Inc. v. Fox Sports Interactive Media, LLC,
`999 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. Ill. 2014) .......................................................... 42, 45
`
`Los Angeles News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int’l, Ltd.,
`149 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................21
`
`Luxottica Grp., S.p.A. v. Airport Mini Mall, LLC,
`186 F. Supp. 3d 1370 (N.D. Ga. 2016) ................................................................18
`
`Malibu Media, LLC v. Doe,
`No. 2:13-cv-135, 2014 WL 1031336 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 17, 2014) ................. 18, 25
`
`Malibu Media, LLC v. Guastaferro,
`No. 1:14-cv-1544, 2015 WL 4603065 (E.D. Va. July 28, 2015) ................. 18, 24
`
`Malibu Media, LLC v. Julien,
`No. 1:12-cv-01730, 2013 WL 5274262 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 17, 2013) ............. 18, 20
`
`Malibu Media, LLC v. Reeves,
`No. 1:12-cv-00841, 2013 WL 5487424 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 27, 2013) .....................18
`
`Malibu Media, LLC v. Zumbo,
`No. 13-cv-729, 2014 WL 2742830 (M.D. Fla. June 17, 2014)............................24
`
`Marek v. Chesny,
`473 U.S. 1 (1985) .................................................................................................60
`
`Matrix Int’l Textile, Inc. v. Monopoly Textile, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-0084, 2017 WL 2929379 (C.D. Cal. May 12, 2017)................... 37, 38
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`McLendon v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.,
`749 F.3d 373 (5th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................41
`
`Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster,
`454 F. Supp. 2d 966 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2006) ........................................... 38, 39
`
`Mitchell Bros. Film Grp. v. Cinema Adult Theater,
`604 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1979) ................................................................................16
`
`Monogram Models, Inc. v. Industro Motive Corp.,
`492 F.2d 1281 (6th Cir. 1974) ..............................................................................42
`
`Murphy v. Millenium Radio Grp. LLC,
`650 F.3d 295 (3d Cir. 2011).......................................................................... 42, 45
`
`Nester v. Textron, Inc.,
`888 F.3d 151 (5th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................46
`
`O’Brien v. City of Greers Ferry,
`873 F.2d 1115 (8th Cir. 1989) ..............................................................................62
`
`Pacific Studios Inc. v. W. Coast Backing Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-0069, 2012 WL 12887637 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2012) .....................42
`
`Palmer/Kane LLC v. Rosen Book Works LLC,
`188 F. Supp. 3d 347 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ..................................................................52
`
`Perma-Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp.,
`392 U.S. 134 (1968) .............................................................................................16
`
`Pers. Keepsakes, Inc. v. Personalizationmall.com, Inc.,
`975 F. Supp. 2d 920 (N.D. Ill. 2013) ...................................................................45
`
`Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 663 (2014) ..................................................................................... passim
`
`Poteete v. Capital Engineering, Inc.,
`185 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 1999) ................................................................................61
`
`Qad, Inc. v. ALN Assoc., Inc.,
`770 F. Supp. 1261 (N.D. Ill. 1991) ......................................................................38
`
`x
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`Randel v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy,
`157 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................16
`
`Schenck v. Orosz,
`105 F. Supp. 3d 812 (M.D. Tenn. 2015) ..............................................................52
`
`Schiffer Pub., Ltd. v. Chronicle Books, LLC,
`No. 03-cv-4962, 2004 WL 2583817 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2004) ...........................45
`
`Shinseki v. Sanders,
`556 U.S. 396 (2009) .............................................................................................50
`
`Sony BMG Music Entm’t v. Tenenbaum,
`660 F.3d 487 (1st Cir. 2011) ................................................................................28
`
`Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v. Filipiak,
`406 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2005) ...............................................................34
`
`Thompson & Wallace of Memphis, Inc. v. Falconwood Corp.,
`100 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................35
`
`UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners Ltd. Liab. Co.,
`718 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................... 60, 61
`
`Utility Automation 2000, Inc. v. Choctawatchee Elec. Co-op., Inc.,
`298 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................... 62
`
`Willis v. Cleco Corp.,
`749 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................35
`
`Statutes
`
`17 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................34
`
`17 U.S.C. § 103(b) ...................................................................................................54
`
`17 U.S.C. § 1202(c) .............................................................................. 41, 42, 43, 44
`
`17 U.S.C. § 1203(c) ................................................................................ 3, 12, 15, 21
`
`17 U.S.C. § 401(d) ...................................................................................................24
`
`17 U.S.C. § 408(c) ............................................................................................ 54, 57
`
`xi
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`17 U.S.C. § 409 ........................................................................................... 56, 57, 58
`
`17 U.S.C. § 411(b) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(1) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(2) ...............................................................................................51
`
`17 U.S.C. § 504(c) .................................................................................. 3, 12, 15, 21
`
`17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) ...............................................................................................24
`
`17 U.S.C. § 507(b) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`17 U.S.C. § 512(c) ............................................................................................ 25, 26
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2111 ......................................................................................................50
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 1112.2 (3d ed. 2014) ..............58
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d) .................................................................................................49
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) .................................................................................................11
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b).......................................................................................... 11, 35
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 ........................................................................................ 12, 14, 60
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b) ..................................................................................................53
`
`Treatises
`
`4 Nimmer on Copyright § 14.04 (2018) ..................................................................22
`
`6 Patry on Copyright § 22:192.25 (2018) ................................................................17
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. 202.3(b)(9).................................................................................. 54, 55, 57
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`
`
`
`
`Legislative History
`
`DMCA: Hearings on H.R. 2281 and H.R. 2180 Before the Subcomm. on Courts
`and Intellectual Property of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 1st
`session (1997) .......................................................................................................44
`
`H.R. Rep. 105-551 (1998) ........................................................................................44
`
`H.R. Rep. 106-216 (1999)................................................................................. 19, 21
`
`H.R. Rep. 94-1476 (1976) ........................................................................................24
`
`S. Rep. 105-190 (1997) ............................................................................................44
`
`
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ON CROSS APPEAL
`
`1. Were Plaintiffs entitled to partial summary judgment dismissing a
`
`purported unclean hands defense that rested solely on Plaintiffs’ decision when to
`
`file their copyright infringement claims?
`
`2.
`
`Did the District Court permissibly decline to give a jury instruction
`
`addressing the general extent of copyright protection because it (a) was irrelevant in
`
`the context of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted Oil Daily compilation works, and (b) would
`
`confuse the jury about determining statutory damages for Defendants’ willful
`
`infringement of those works?
`
`3.
`
`(a) Did Defendants forfeit any relief under Copyright Act §
`
`411(b)(2) – to address the validity of Plaintiffs’ copyright registrations – by
`
`(i) (A) stipulating to the validity of all those registrations in the Joint
`
`Pretrial Order that was (B) issued by the District Court, and
`
`(ii) failing to cross-appeal that order?
`
`(b)
`
`If the District Court’s signed enforcement of the stipulation did
`
`not foreclose review, did the District Court properly exercise its discretion in
`
`declining the request for referral to the Register of Copyrights under Section
`
`411(b)(2) when
`
`(i) Defendants failed to allege invalidity properly in either their
`
`responsive pleadings or the Joint Pretrial Order, and
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 15 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`(ii) the District Court found in any event that Plaintiffs had not
`
`provided inaccurate registration information to the Copyright Office,
`
`knowingly or otherwise?
`
`4.
`
`Concerning statutory damages for violations of the Digital Millennium
`
`Copyright Act (DMCA),
`
`(a) Did Defendants fail to renew their JMOL motion on liability after
`
`trial and thus fail to preserve error on this issue?
`
`(b)
`
`In any event, did substantial evidence support the jury’s verdict
`
`that Defendants altered Plaintiff’s “copyright management information” in
`
`violation of the DMCA?
`
`5.
`
`Did the District Court correctly reject Defendants’ recovery of
`
`attorneys’ fees under Rule 68 because Kayne was not the “prevailing party” within
`
`the meaning of the Copyright Act fee provision, 17 U.S.C. § 505?
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 16 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`I. Preliminary Statement
`
`This case involves claims by Plaintiffs Energy Intelligence Group, Inc., and
`
`Energy Intelligence Group (UK) Limited (collectively “EIG”), against Defendants
`
`Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors LP and K.A. Fund Advisors, L.L.C. (collectively
`
`“Kayne”), for copyright infringement and removal of copyright management
`
`information under the Copyright Act. EIG timely elected to recover statutory
`
`damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) and statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c).
`
`This Court should disregard Kayne’s unsupported theory and mere attorney
`
`argument suggesting that EIG had direct knowledge of Kayne’s infringement in
`
`2007 but intentionally delayed filing suit with the express intent of increasing
`
`damages in a hypothetical future lawsuit. No document or witness testimony at trial
`
`stated that EIG waited years to file suit against Kayne. Furthermore, the jury found
`
`that Kayne fraudulently concealed its infringement from EIG.
`
`(ROA.18-
`
`20350.9427.) Starting in January 2007, Mr. Baker instructed his assistants to lie to
`
`EIG by telling them that he was the only one using Oil Daily (“OD”). (EIG’s
`
`Principal Brief (“EIG Br.”) at 6). Following Mr. Baker’s instructions, his assistant
`
`Diana Lerma lied to EIG about Kayne’s use of OD on January 3, 2007, October 27,
`
`2011, November 12, 2012, and again on December 12, 2012. (Id. at 6-8). There
`
`was no long-simmering scheme to delay suit, because the evidence shows that
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 17 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`throughout this period Kayne was continuously and repeatedly lying to EIG about
`
`its use of OD.
`
`There was no evidence that EIG misused its copyrights or attempted to
`
`exercise any rights not expressly granted to all authors in Section 106 of the
`
`Copyright Act. After decades of authoring award-winning publications, EIG did
`
`decide, for the first time in its half-century history, to enforce its copyrights in
`
`situations when subscribers were committing blatant copyright infringement, such
`
`as the infringement committed by Kayne.
`
`EIG strongly disagree with Kayne’s attacks, but they also have no bearing on
`
`the legal issues before this Court, and are merely an attempt to paint EIG in a poor
`
`light for enforcing its rights under the Copyright Act against an egregiously willful
`
`serial infringer that fraudulently concealed its unlawful actions. Kayne’s
`
`unsupported accusations boil down to “EIG delayed litigation for strategic
`
`purposes,” which even if true, is a practice the Supreme Court has expressly
`
`sanctioned. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 682 (2014)
`
`(explaining that it is not incumbent on copyright owners to challenge each actionable
`
`infringement and noting that there is nothing untoward about deferring suit until
`
`litigation “is worth the candle”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 18 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`II. Relevant Facts and Procedural History
`
`A.
`
`EIG Attached Its Copyright Registrations to Its Operative Pleadings
`
`The Copyright Act creates a presumption of validity upon registration. “A
`
`certificate of registration satisfies the requirements of this section and section 412,
`
`regardless of whether the certificate contains any inaccurate information,” except in
`
`specified circumstances. 17 U.S.C. § 411(b)(1).
`
`EIG attached the pertinent OD copyright registrations to its original complaint
`
`filed on July 8, 2014. (ROA.18-20350.71-187.) EIG likewise attached the same
`
`copyright registrations for the works at issue to subsequent amended complaints.
`
`(ROA.18-20350.249-364, ROA.18-20350.520-593, ROA.18-20350.798-925.)
`
`B. Kayne Failed in its Responsive Pleadings to Allege Any
`Inaccuracies in EIG’s Registrations, Knowing or Otherwise
`
`In its responsive pleadings, Kayne acknowledged that EIG had attached
`
`copyright registrations to the Amended Complaint. (ROA.18-20350.388, ROA.18-
`
`20350.2137.) Kayne did not affirmatively allege any basis for overcoming the
`
`statutory presumption that those registrations are valid. (ROA.18-20350.393,
`
`ROA.18-20350.2142-2143.)
`
`The dispositive motion deadline was ultimately set for September 16, 2016.
`
`(ROA.18-20350.1849.) Kayne did not file any motion (or any other pleading)
`
`concerning the inaccuracy of EIG’s registrations or for referral to the Copyright
`
`Office by that deadline.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 18-20350 Document: 00514841624 Page: 19 Date Filed: 02/19/2019
`
`C.
`
`Judge Lake Granted Summary Judgment
`Rejecting Kayne’s Unclean Hands Defense
`
`EIG timely moved for summary judgment on Kayne’s unclean hands defense
`
`on the grounds that (a) Kayne did not demonstrate any evidence of pertinent
`
`inequitable conduct by EIG, and (