Epidemic Sound, AB v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

Epidemic Sound sued Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly Facebook, Inc., alleging that Meta offered Epidemic’s music without authorization on Facebook and Instagram. The complaint alleged that Meta’s Music Library contained more than 950 Epidemic tracks and allowed users to download, stream, and use the tracks in video content. It also alleged that Meta’s Original Audio and Reels Remix features enabled users to extract, reproduce, distribute, and reuse music.

Epidemic asserted three claims under the Copyright Act: direct copyright infringement, inducement of copyright infringement, and contributory copyright infringement. It also alleged that Meta’s infringement was willful and sought a declaration concerning infringement and willfulness, along with statutory damages.

Motion to Stay

Meta moved to stay the case pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 24-171. Alternatively, Meta asked the court to continue the case deadlines, except for the expert-discovery cutoff, until after the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s Cox case involved questions about when an online service provider may be liable for contributory copyright infringement based on users’ infringement and what a plaintiff must prove to establish willful infringement. The Supreme Court was also considering whether mere knowledge of another person’s direct infringement can support a finding of willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the factors governing a stay of proceedings: possible harm from the stay, hardship or inequity from requiring the case to continue, and whether a stay would promote the orderly resolution of the case by simplifying legal issues and conserving resources.

The court concluded that waiting to hold the jury trial would help clarify the legal standard for contributory copyright infringement. The Supreme Court’s decision could affect Epidemic’s contributory-infringement claim and related inducement claim, including the Ninth Circuit’s standard concerning whether a service provider knew of infringement and failed to take available, simple measures to stop it. The court also concluded that Cox could clarify the standard for willfulness and the damages available for willful infringement.

The court rejected Epidemic’s arguments that Cox was not sufficiently relevant because it involved an internet service provider and that direct-infringement claims made a stay unnecessary. The court reasoned that the legal questions in Cox could apply more broadly to digital service providers and that Epidemic continued to assert secondary-liability claims affected by the Supreme Court’s decision.

The court found that delaying trial would not cause Epidemic irreparable harm. It noted that Epidemic had alleged discovering the infringement in November 2017 but did not file suit until July 2022, and that the parties had already spent substantial time and resources litigating the case. The court determined that a finite delay pending Supreme Court guidance outweighed the harm from delaying trial.

Ruling

The court granted in part Meta’s motion. It vacated the trial date and stated that trial would occur after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Cox. The court did not stay summary judgment; summary-judgment proceedings will proceed on all issues, subject to reconsideration if appropriate after Cox is decided. The parties were expected to submit a stipulation proposing modified summary-judgment deadlines. The order disposed of Docket No. 275.