Court Goes for Suing Does: Eighth Circuit | Practical Law

Court Goes for Suing Does: Eighth Circuit | Practical Law

In Killer Joe Nevada, LLC v. Leaverton, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied Leigh Leaverton’s request for attorneys’ fees against the owner of the copyrights in the film “Killer Joe” after it voluntarily dismissed its complaint, ruling that Killer Joe Nevada, LLC acted reasonably in suing alleged “John Doe” copyright infringers identified solely by their Internet protocol (IP) addresses.

Court Goes for Suing Does: Eighth Circuit

Practical Law Legal Update w-001-0293 (Approx. 3 pages)

Court Goes for Suing Does: Eighth Circuit

by Practical Law Intellectual Property & Technology
Published on 07 Dec 2015 • USA (National/Federal)
In Killer Joe Nevada, LLC v. Leaverton, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied Leigh Leaverton’s request for attorneys’ fees against the owner of the copyrights in the film “Killer Joe” after it voluntarily dismissed its complaint, ruling that Killer Joe Nevada, LLC acted reasonably in suing alleged “John Doe” copyright infringers identified solely by their Internet protocol (IP) addresses.
On December 4, 2015, in Killer Joe Nevada, LLC v. Leaverton, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied Leigh Leaverton’s request for attorneys’ fees against the owner of the copyrights in the film “Killer Joe” after it voluntarily dismissed its complaint, ruling that Killer Joe Nevada, LLC acted reasonably in suing alleged “John Doe” copyright infringers identified solely by their Internet protocol (IP) addresses (No. 14-3274 (8th Cir. Dec. 4, 2015)).
The court rejected Leaverton’s argument that it was unreasonable and frivolous for Killer Joe Nevada to sue subscribers of IP addresses for copyright infringement without first investigating whether the subscriber was actually responsible for the infringement.
Specifically, the court ruled that:
  • A plaintiff that knows only the IP address of a suspected copyright infringer may properly sue an anonymous John Doe to obtain a third-party subpoena seeking an Internet service provider’s (ISP) disclosure of the identity of the ISP subscribers associated with that IP address.
  • Leaverton did not cite any binding authority for the proposition that this practice of filing a copyright infringement suit based on an infringer’s IP address is frivolous or unreasonable.
  • The US District Court for the Northern District of Iowa therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Leaverton’s motion for attorneys’ fees based on its conclusion that Killer Joe Nevada acted reasonably in filing its John Doe action.
The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Killer Joe Nevada’s motivation in suing Leaverton as a John Doe defendant was proper, because Killer Joe Nevada voluntarily dismissed its complaint against her after it learned that she was not the infringer.