Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground [1]

On August 10, 2010, Righthaven LLC, a Las Vegas company associated with Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Stephens Media LLC, filed a copyright infringement [2] lawsuit against the website Democratic Underground ("DU") and its owner, David Allen. 

As illustrated by an exhibit to the Complaint [3], a DU user going by the screen name "pampango" posted the first four paragraphs of a Review-Journal article entitled "Tea Party power fuels Angle" in the website's forums on May 13, 2010, with a link back to the remainder of the 34-paragraph article on the Review-Journal website. The Complaint seeks statutory damages for willful infringement, transfer of the democraticunderground.com domain name, and costs and attorneys' fees.

On September 27, 2010, attorneys for DU, including attorneys with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, filed an Answer and Counterclaims [4] against Righthaven, seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.  The counterclaims also named Stephens Media.

Update:

11/15/2010 - Righthaven moved to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice [5] its complaint against DU.  Righthaven said that its decision was based on an intervening fair use ruling in Righthaven LLC v. Realty One Group, Inc. [6], and argued that it would be unfair to force Righthaven to continue to litigate its present case.

11/17/2010 - Stephens Media moved to dismiss or strike [7] DU's counterclaims against it.  Stephens Media argued that no controversy existed between it and DU, and that DU failed to state a claim against Stephens Media.  Stephens Media also partially joined Righthaven's motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint.

12/7/2010 - DU filed briefs in opposition to both Righthaven's motion [8] for voluntary dismissal and Stephens Media's motion [9] to dismiss.  DU argued that Righthaven's complaint was meritless from the start, and that DU was entitled to seek attorneys fees even if Righthaven dropped the complaint.  DU also argued that its counterclaims against Righthaven did not depend on Righthaven's complaint, and thus still merited litigating.  Regarding the Stephens Media motion, DU argued that its counterclaim against Stephens Media did set out a controversy between the parties, and that the dismissal of Righthaven's complaint had no bearing upon that controversy.

3/4/2011 - DU filed a motion to for leave to file a supplemental memo [10] addressing new evidence relating to various pending motions.  DU also moved to seal its motion [11] as the evidence contained documents marked "Confidential Attorneys’ Eyes Only" by Stephens Media.  DU said it would seal the documents until it could discuss with opposing counsel which portions should be made publicly available.

3/29/2011 - DU moved to unseal [12] the documents.  DU stated that Stephens Media and Righthaven refused to lift its designation of  "Confidential Attorneys’ Eyes Only" and did not reach a stipulated resolution with DU.  DU added that Stephens Media and Righthaven failed to file any justification with the court for keeping the documents sealed.  Thus, DU argued, they failed to meet their burden of showing why the documents should remain sealed, and so the documents should be made public.

4/11/2011 - The court granted [13] DU's motion to unseal the documents.  The documents were revealed to include [14] a "Strategic Alliance Agreement" between Stephens Media and Righthaven, describing the terms of copyright assignments for the purposes of litigation against infringers.  The agreement states among other things that Righthaven has no right to exploit the copyrights at issue, other than via recovery from lawsuits, and that Stephens Media retains control over who Righthaven sues.

6/14/2011 - Court concluded that there was no absolute transfer of any right within copyright, and that Stephens Media, the original copyright holder, retained actual control even over the right to sue for infringement. Finding that "[p]ursuant to Section 501(b) of the 1976 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et. seq., only the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under copyright law is entitled, or has standing, to sue for infringement," the court held that Righthaven lacks the ability to bring the instant case. As such, it grants Democratic Undergound's motion for summary judgment, and dismisses as moot the Motions from Stephens Media and Righthaven.