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

Background

Before trial, Moonbug Entertainment Limited and Treasure Studio, Inc. moved to exclude opinions from four BabyBus experts: Denise Denson, Ellen Seiter, Christian Tregillis, and Frank Saperstein. BabyBus moved to exclude portions of opinions from two Moonbug experts: Fran Krause and Jennifer Vanderhart. The motions were based primarily on Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires expert testimony to be relevant, reliable, and helpful to the factfinder. The court applied the principle that weaknesses affecting the weight of testimony ordinarily should be addressed through cross-examination rather than exclusion.

Moonbug’s Motions

The court denied Moonbug’s motion to exclude Denise Denson’s opinions about YouTube analytics. Denson’s experience in children’s programming qualified her to interpret YouTube metrics, and her analysis was relevant to whether Super JoJo had independent appeal and therefore to Moonbug’s claimed damages. Although her analysis covered only 62 of the 392 accused videos and she could not identify each video by title or identifying number, the court found that the limitations were disclosed and could be explored at trial.

The court denied in part and granted in part Moonbug’s motion concerning Ellen Seiter. It denied the request to exclude Seiter’s opinions about the children’s-entertainment genre and the protectability of elements of Moonbug’s JJ character, subject to a limit: her protectability opinions were restricted to elements Moonbug claimed were common with BabyBus’s JoJo. The court granted the request to exclude Seiter’s opinions about the specific timing of child-development milestones because her film-and-media background did not provide the necessary specialized knowledge. The court also stated that certain general observations about development that did not require expertise were barred.

The court denied Moonbug’s motion to exclude Christian Tregillis’s damages testimony. Tregillis could testify about deductible expenses, the apportionment of BabyBus’s revenue, and the use of Super Pandobi as a non-infringing alternative. The court found his methods sufficiently reliable for the admissibility stage, including his use of BabyBus business records, employee information, expense allocations, and viewership data. Moonbug could challenge those methods through cross-examination.

The court denied Moonbug’s motion to exclude Frank Saperstein’s opinions identifying a preschool-video genre and describing baby characters as interchangeable stock characters, subject to a limit. Saperstein could rely on disclosed videos and his professional experience even though his searches and selection methods could be challenged. His opinions about unprotectability were limited to aspects Moonbug claimed were substantially similar between JJ and JoJo.

BabyBus’s Motions

The court denied BabyBus’s motion to exclude Fran Krause’s opinions about factual similarities between the works and his general comparisons between them. Krause could provide detailed comparisons of animation styles, characters, settings, plots, and other elements, but the jury—not Krause—would decide the ultimate legal question of substantial similarity. The court therefore instructed Krause not to use the legal term “substantially similar.” The court also denied BabyBus’s request to exclude Krause’s factual narrative about CoComelon’s development insofar as that narrative formed a basis for his expert opinion.

The court granted BabyBus’s motion to exclude Krause’s opinion expressly using the phrase “total concept and feel,” because that opinion addressed the subjective overall comparison reserved for the jury. The court also granted the motion to exclude Krause’s opinions about BabyBus’s state of mind or intent, finding that those opinions speculated about what BabyBus employees knew or intended. Krause could still testify about underlying facts and similarities that might help the jury decide those issues.

The court denied BabyBus’s motion to exclude Jennifer Vanderhart’s damages testimony. Vanderhart could include revenue associated with viewers outside the United States when that revenue flowed from alleged infringing acts occurring in the United States, such as uploading videos to United States-based YouTube servers. She could also use total views across the Super JoJo channel and “adjusted views” based on Tubular data. The court found those methods sufficiently reliable for the admissibility stage, even though the data could be challenged and did not always match later YouTube data.

Disposition and Classification

The order denied Moonbug’s motions regarding Denson and Tregillis; denied in part and granted in part its motion regarding Seiter; and denied its motion regarding Saperstein, subject to stated limits. It denied in part and granted in part BabyBus’s motion regarding Krause and denied its motion regarding Vanderhart. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 287, 288, 289, 290, 294, and 302.

This is classified as a procedural order because it addressed the admissibility and scope of expert evidence before trial rather than deciding whether copyright infringement occurred or determining the amount of damages.