Adobe Systems Inc. v. Anthony Kornrumpf

Ninth Circuit

Adobe Systems Inc. v. Anthony Kornrumpf

577 F. App'x 684

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 2, 2014

Docket12-16616

StatusUnpublished

This text of 577 F. App'x 684 (Adobe Systems Inc. v. Anthony Kornrumpf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adobe Systems Inc. v. Anthony Kornrumpf, 577 F. App'x 684 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Defendants Anthony Kornrumpf and Hoop Enterprises, LLC appeal judgment in favor of plaintiff Adobe Systems Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Adobe on the defendants’ first sale doctrine defense, and we affirm.

The district court did not err in its application of Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102, 1111 (9th Cir.2010), to Dell’s and HP’s acquisition of copies of Adobe software products. The original equipment manufacturer contracts specified that Dell and HP were granted licenses, significantly restricted Dell’s and HP’s ability to transfer the software and imposed notable use restrictions. A transfer of software products under these circumstances constitutes a license rather than a sale. See Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1159 (9th Cir.2011); MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, 938-39 (9th Cir.2010), as amended; Vernor, 621 F.3d at 1111-12.

The defendants seek to distinguish these cases on grounds not presented to the district court. Because the defendants raise these arguments for the first time on appeal, we decline to reach them. See AlohaCare v. Hawaii, Dep’t. of Human Servs., 572 F.3d 740, 744 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM *

Defendants Anthony Kornrumpf and Hoop Enterprises, LLC appeal judgment in favor of plaintiff Adobe Systems Inc. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Adobe on the defendants’ first sale doctrine defense, and we affirm.

The district court did not err in its application of Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102, 1111 (9th Cir.2010), to Dell’s and HP’s acquisition of copies of Adobe software products. The original equipment manufacturer contracts specified that Dell and HP were granted licenses, significantly restricted Dell’s and HP’s ability to transfer the software and imposed notable use restrictions. A transfer of software products under these circumstances constitutes a license rather than a sale. See Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1159 (9th Cir.2011); MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, 938-39 (9th Cir.2010), as amended; Vernor, 621 F.3d at 1111-12.

The defendants seek to distinguish these cases on grounds not presented to the district court. Because the defendants raise these arguments for the first time on appeal, we decline to reach them. See AlohaCare v. Hawaii, Dep’t. of Human Servs., 572 F.3d 740, 744 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

577 F. App'x 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adobe-systems-inc-v-anthony-kornrumpf-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack