Moonbug Entertainment Limited v. Babybus Network Technology Co., Ltd

Background

This was a final pretrial conference order in a copyright case brought by Moonbug Entertainment Limited and Treasure Studio, Inc. against BabyBus Co., Ltd. and BabyBus (Fujian) Network Technology Co., Ltd. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants willfully infringed copyrights in CoComelon characters and videos and made misrepresentations to YouTube to cause allegedly infringing videos to be restored. The defendants disputed the misrepresentation claims and the amount of damages.

The court set a jury trial to begin July 5, 2023, with up to ten trial days. Each side received 20 hours to present evidence, including opening statements and closing arguments. The order also required advance notice of witnesses and exhibits and allowed the court to exclude witnesses or documents for failure to comply. The court accepted the parties’ preliminary statement to the jury, while stating that jury instructions and representative-exhibit objections would be handled separately.

Rulings on Moonbug’s Motions

1. Personnel-cost allocations. The court denied Moonbug’s motion to exclude evidence and documents concerning Babybus’s allocation of personnel salaries and other expenses that Babybus sought to deduct from Super JoJo revenues. The court also denied Moonbug’s request to exclude entirely the report of Babybus’s damages expert, Christian Tregillis, concerning those allocations. The court allowed Moonbug limited, expedited discovery about the allocation of time and work on CoComelon, ordered Babybus to produce available timesheets for people listed as having worked on JoJo, and ordered Babybus to make three identified individuals available for remote depositions on the allocation issue.

2. Prior animated works. The court denied Moonbug’s motion to exclude evidence and testimony about alleged similarities between CoComelon, Super JoJo, and third-party animated babies or families. The court ruled that such evidence could help the jury identify common genre features and other material that copyright law does not protect. It also ruled that an industry fact witness with personal knowledge and experience could testify about similarities and common features.

3. Moonbug employees’ conduct and inspiration. The court granted Moonbug’s motion concerning animator Marvin Lee’s college student project involving music from The Lion King. The court found that using the project to suggest a general attitude toward copyright at Moonbug would be unfairly prejudicial and improper character evidence. The court stated that Babybus could potentially ask Lee about the incident on cross-examination if he testified on direct examination that he had never violated copyright laws. The court denied Moonbug’s motion concerning Moonbug employees’ use of other children’s content, finding that evidence relevant to whether shared elements were common or otherwise not protected could be admitted.

4. Evidence and expert opinions not disclosed in discovery. The court denied Moonbug’s general request to exclude every item not produced or identified before discovery closed because the motion identified no particular evidence. The court said any specific disclosure issue would be decided item by item. The court granted the motion to exclude expert testimony about liability and comparisons between the copyrighted and accused works when those opinions were not included in the experts’ reports. The court also granted Moonbug’s related request to preclude liability opinions from the identified experts when those opinions fell outside their disclosed reports.

5. Doudou evidence. Regarding an unproduced Doudou image appearing in witness declarations, the court granted in part and denied in part Moonbug’s motion. The court found that one image was not adequately authenticated because the evidence did not clearly establish that it was the same character image viewed in the video involved in Babybus’s claimed independent-development story, while another Doudou image appearing in earlier filings was admissible. The court denied the motion as to Doudou images produced in Chinese copyright registrations. It also denied the motion as to Doudou videos, including the Barber video, compilation videos, and related files, finding that the videos were not hearsay and that witness testimony sufficiently supported their authentication.

Rulings on Babybus’s Motions

1. Concededly infringing videos. The court denied Babybus’s motion to exclude evidence and argument concerning six videos and four compilations that Babybus had conceded infringed certain Moonbug registrations. The court explained that the jury still had to consider damages, whether other registrations were infringed, the copyright-misrepresentation claim, and willfulness. The court stated that the jury would be instructed to decide infringement separately for each work.

2. Revenue, non-U.S. distribution, and effects on Moonbug’s business. The court found Babybus’s global revenue information, including information in an initial public offering prospectus, relevant and admissible for matters including Babybus’s business, Super JoJo’s development, damages, and expense apportionment. The court did not exclude evidence about distribution of Super JoJo on non-U.S. platforms. It also allowed evidence that Super JoJo affected Moonbug properties beyond CoComelon, subject to cross-examination about whether the claimed infringement caused those effects. The court denied the motion in limine.

3. YouTube and Digital Millennium Copyright Act events. The court denied Babybus’s motion to exclude evidence about YouTube’s removal of Super JoJo videos, suspension of Babybus’s channel, and Babybus’s own removal of videos. The court found that the evidence’s value concerning knowledge, the copyright-misrepresentation claim, willfulness, and alleged harm outweighed the risk of unfair prejudice.

4. Nationality, language, and government subsidies. The court denied Babybus’s request concerning questioning about Chinese government subsidies, while cautioning the parties against unnecessary references to nationality, language, or residence that might suggest ethnic or national stereotypes. The court said foundational references to China, Chinese and Taiwanese witnesses testifying through a translator, Chinese copyright registrations, and the amount of government subsidies could be admissible for limited purposes. It reserved judgment on other references to national origin or language on a case-by-case basis at trial.

5. Other Babybus characters. The court denied Babybus’s motion to exclude evidence of alleged copying or infringement of Moonbug’s Baby JJ copyright by other Babybus characters or characters of non-parties. The court found that comparisons with other baby characters could be relevant to whether JJ had generic characteristics, to Babybus’s defenses, and to Moonbug’s willfulness claims.

Disposition and Classification

This order ruled on pretrial evidence, discovery, and trial-management matters. It did not resolve the underlying copyright-infringement or damages questions. The order’s relevant dispositions were denials, grants, and a grant in part and denial in part of particular motions, as described above. The opinion is classified as a procedural order because it addressed trial preparation and evidentiary gatekeeping rather than deciding the remaining merits.