{"cached_at":"2026-11-09T11:46:06.439142+00:00","cl_docket_id":"71357247","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","id":71357247,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cacd/","court_id":"cacd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/13373/","referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9050/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:30.267412-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-29T14:34:36.606255-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Stanley Blumenfeld Jr.","referred_to_str":"Charles F. Eick","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-09-16","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-10-20","case_name_short":"Minimax","case_name":"Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Minimax","case_name_full":"","slug":"disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax","docket_number":"2:25-cv-08768","docket_number_core":"2508768","docket_number_raw":"2:25-cv-08768","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"2","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"SB","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"E","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"987146","cause":"17:501 Copyright Infringement","nature_of_suit":"820 Copyright","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2025-09-16T06:28:30.258615-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17228093/","id":17228093,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2026-06-26","extra_info":"1 through 20, inclusive\nTERMINATED: 06/26/2026","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-30T11:00:29.195481-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-30T11:00:29.195493-08:00","name":"Does","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17228092/","id":17228092,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350855/","attorney_id":11350855,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350855/","attorney_id":11350855,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350851/","attorney_id":11350851,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350852/","attorney_id":11350852,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350853/","attorney_id":11350853,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350854/","attorney_id":11350854,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":"2026-05-01","extra_info":"a Chinese company\nTERMINATED: 05/01/2026","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-30T11:00:29.107221-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-30T11:00:29.107232-08:00","name":"MiniMax","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16348697/","id":16348697,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350855/","attorney_id":11350855,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350855/","attorney_id":11350855,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350851/","attorney_id":11350851,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350852/","attorney_id":11350852,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350853/","attorney_id":11350853,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13888280/","attorney_id":13888280,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350854/","attorney_id":11350854,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Singaporean private limited company","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Counter Claimant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Singaporean private limited company","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:36.190242-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-16T06:28:36.190253-07:00","name":"Nanonoble Pte. Ltd.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16348696/","id":16348696,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13888280/","attorney_id":13888280,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350855/","attorney_id":11350855,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350855/","attorney_id":11350855,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350851/","attorney_id":11350851,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350852/","attorney_id":11350852,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350853/","attorney_id":11350853,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11350854/","attorney_id":11350854,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Chinese limited company","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Counter Claimant","date_terminated":"2026-06-05","extra_info":"a Chinese limited company\nTERMINATED: 06/05/2026","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:36.175169-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-16T06:28:36.175180-07:00","name":"Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16348694/","id":16348694,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617137/","attorney_id":13617137,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617138/","attorney_id":13617138,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230091/","attorney_id":11230091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230092/","attorney_id":11230092,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10706958/","attorney_id":10706958,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware limited liability company","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware limited liability company","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:36.129251-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-16T06:28:36.129264-07:00","name":"Dreamworks Animation L.L.C.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16348693/","id":16348693,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617137/","attorney_id":13617137,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617138/","attorney_id":13617138,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230091/","attorney_id":11230091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230092/","attorney_id":11230092,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10706958/","attorney_id":10706958,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:36.096049-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-16T06:28:36.096063-07:00","name":"Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16348692/","id":16348692,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617137/","attorney_id":13617137,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617138/","attorney_id":13617138,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230091/","attorney_id":11230091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230092/","attorney_id":11230092,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10706958/","attorney_id":10706958,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:36.065347-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-16T06:28:36.065358-07:00","name":"Turner Entertainment Co.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16348691/","id":16348691,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617137/","attorney_id":13617137,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617138/","attorney_id":13617138,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230091/","attorney_id":11230091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230092/","attorney_id":11230092,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10706958/","attorney_id":10706958,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:36.033106-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-16T06:28:36.033116-07:00","name":"The Cartoon Network, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16348690/","id":16348690,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617137/","attorney_id":13617137,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617138/","attorney_id":13617138,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230091/","attorney_id":11230091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10706958/","attorney_id":10706958,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a New York general partnership","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a New York general partnership","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:36.000178-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-16T06:28:36.000192-07:00","name":"DC Comics","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16348689/","id":16348689,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617137/","attorney_id":13617137,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617138/","attorney_id":13617138,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230091/","attorney_id":11230091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230092/","attorney_id":11230092,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10706958/","attorney_id":10706958,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware Corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware Corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:35.953212-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-16T06:28:35.953234-07:00","name":"Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16348688/","id":16348688,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617137/","attorney_id":13617137,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617138/","attorney_id":13617138,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230091/","attorney_id":11230091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230092/","attorney_id":11230092,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10706958/","attorney_id":10706958,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a California limited liability company","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a California limited liability company","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:35.826840-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-16T06:28:35.826860-07:00","name":"Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16348687/","id":16348687,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617137/","attorney_id":13617137,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617138/","attorney_id":13617138,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230091/","attorney_id":11230091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230092/","attorney_id":11230092,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10706958/","attorney_id":10706958,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware limited liability company","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware limited liability company","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:35.775094-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-16T06:28:35.775107-07:00","name":"MVL Film Finance LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16348686/","id":16348686,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617137/","attorney_id":13617137,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617138/","attorney_id":13617138,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230091/","attorney_id":11230091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230092/","attorney_id":11230092,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10706958/","attorney_id":10706958,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:35.740519-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-16T06:28:35.740533-07:00","name":"Marvel Characters, Inc","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16348685/","id":16348685,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617137/","attorney_id":13617137,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617138/","attorney_id":13617138,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230091/","attorney_id":11230091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230092/","attorney_id":11230092,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10706958/","attorney_id":10706958,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:35.693277-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-16T06:28:35.693291-07:00","name":"Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16348684/","id":16348684,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617137/","attorney_id":13617137,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617138/","attorney_id":13617138,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230091/","attorney_id":11230091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230092/","attorney_id":11230092,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10706958/","attorney_id":10706958,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware limited liability limited partnership","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware limited liability limited partnership","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:35.639371-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-16T06:28:35.639381-07:00","name":"Universal City Studios Productions LLLP","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16348683/","id":16348683,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10706958/","attorney_id":10706958,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10706958/","attorney_id":10706958,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617137/","attorney_id":13617137,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13617138/","attorney_id":13617138,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230091/","attorney_id":11230091,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11230092/","attorney_id":11230092,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","docket_id":71357247,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-09-16T06:28:35.595966-07:00","date_modified":"2025-09-16T06:28:35.595983-07:00","name":"Disney Enterprises, Inc.","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482234757/","id":482234757,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498004181/","id":498004181,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/66/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-10-20T16:36:08.975988-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-26T05:45:50.060714-07:00","sha1":"aaebec21b6d330c574ff26fa269a241016299154","page_count":4,"file_size":161783,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.66.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.66.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 66 Filed 10/20/26 Page 1 of 4 Page ID\n #:1433\n\n\n\n 1\n 2 JENNER & BLOCK LLP\n David Singer (SBN 204699)\n 3 DSinger@jenner.com\n Julie Shepard (SBN 175538)\n 4 JShepard@jenner.com\n Lauren Greene (SBN 271397)\n 5 LGreene@jenner.com\n Mark Marciszewski (SBN 344240)\n 6 MMarciszewski@jenner.com\n 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300\n 7 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246\n Telephone: +1 213 239 5100\n 8 Facsimile: +1 213 239 5199\n 9\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants\n10\n11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n13\n14 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.; Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS\n15 PRODUCTIONS LLLP; WARNER BROS. Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.\n Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick\n16 ENTERTAINMENT INC., et al.,\n WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY\n17 Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS\u2019 AMENDED FEDERAL\n18 v. RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.1\n DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND\n19 MINIMAX, et al., LOCAL RULE 7.1-1 CERTIFICATION\n Defendants.\n20 AND NOTICE OF INTERESTED\n PARTIES\n21 NANONOBLE PTE. LTD.,\n22 Counterclaimant,\n23 v.\n24\n DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,\n25 UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS\n26 PRODUCTIONS LLLP, WARNER BROS.\n ENTERTAINMENT INC., et al.,\n27\n Counterclaim-Defendants.\n28\n WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY PLAINTIFFS\u2019 AMENDED CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND\n NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 66 Filed 10/20/26 Page 2 of 4 Page ID\n #:1434\n\n\n\n 1 The undersigned counsel of record for plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Marvel\n 2 Characters, Inc., MVL Film Finance LLC, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, and Twentieth Century\n 3 Fox Film Corporation (collectively, \u201cDisney\u201d or \u201cDisney Plaintiffs\u201d), Universal City\n 4 Studios Productions LLLP and DreamWorks Animation L.L.C. (collectively, \u201cUniversal\u201d\n 5 or \u201cUniversal Plaintiffs\u201d), and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., DC Comics, The Cartoon\n 6 Network, Inc., Turner Entertainment Co., and Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc.\n 7 (collectively, \u201cWarner Bros. Discovery\u201d or \u201cWarner Bros. Discovery Plaintiffs\u201d) hereby\n 8 submits the following amended disclosure statement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil\n 9 Procedure 7.1 as to the Warner Bros. Discovery Plaintiffs only:\n10 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Skydance\n11 Corporation, a publicly traded company.\n12 DC Comics is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Skydance Corporation, a\n13 publicly traded company.\n14 The Cartoon Network, Inc. is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Skydance\n15 Corporation, a publicly traded company.\n16 Turner Entertainment Co. is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Skydance\n17 Corporation, a publicly traded company.\n18 Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. is a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Skydance\n19 Corporation, a publicly traded company.\n20 Harbor Lights Entertainment, Inc. (formerly known as National Amusements,\n21 Inc.), a privately held company, beneficially owns all of the Class A voting stock of\n22 Skydance Corporation.\n23 No publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of Skydance Corporation\u2019s Class\n24 A or Class B common stock.\n25 Further, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1-1 of the United States District Court for the\n26 Central District of California, the undersigned counsel of record for Disney, Universal, and\n27 Warner Bros. Discovery certifies that the following listed parties may have a pecuniary\n28\n 1\n WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY PLAINTIFFS\u2019 AMENDED CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND NOTICE\n OF INTERESTED PARTIES\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 66 Filed 10/20/26 Page 3 of 4 Page ID\n #:1435\n\n\n\n 1 interest in the outcome of this case:\n 2 1. Disney Enterprises, Inc. (Plaintiff)\n 3 2. Marvel Characters, Inc. (Plaintiff)\n 4 3. MVL Film Finance LLC (Plaintiff)\n 5 4. Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC (Plaintiff)\n 6 5. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (Plaintiff)\n 7 6. The Walt Disney Company (Disney\u2019s parent company)\n 8 7. Universal City Studios Productions LLLP (Plaintiff)\n 9 8. DreamWorks Animation L.L.C. (Plaintiff)\n10 9. Comcast Corporation (Universal\u2019s parent company)\n11 10. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (Plaintiff)\n12 11. DC Comics (Plaintiff)\n13 12. The Cartoon Network, Inc. (Plaintiff)\n14 13. Turner Entertainment Co. (Plaintiff)\n15 14. Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. (Plaintiff)\n16 15. Skydance Corporation (Warner Bros. Discovery\u2019s parent company)\n17 16. Harbor Lights Entertainment, Inc. (owner of all Class A stock of Skydance\n18 Corporation)\n19 17. Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd. (Defendant)\n20 18. Nanonoble Pte. Ltd. (Defendant and Counterclaimant)\n21 These representations are made to enable the Court to evaluate possible\n22 disqualification or recusal.\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n 2\n WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY PLAINTIFFS\u2019 AMENDED CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND\n NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 66 Filed 10/20/26 Page 4 of 4 Page ID\n #:1436\n\n\n\n 1 Dated: October 20, 2026 JENNER & BLOCK LLP\n 2\n By: /s/ David R. Singer\n 3 David R. Singer\n Julie A. Shepard\n 4\n Lauren M. Greene\n 5 Mark Marciszewski\n 6\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n 7\n 8\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n 3\n WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY PLAINTIFFS\u2019 AMENDED CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND\n NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-10-20T17:43:28.573206-07:00","document_number":"66","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031049191666","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Corporate Disclosure Statement","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-20T16:36:08.945666-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-21T06:04:38.579046-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-20","time_filed":"16:26:49","entry_number":66,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":382,"description":"CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT and Certificate of Interested Parties (Amended) filed by Plaintiffs DC Comics, Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc., The Cartoon Network, Inc., Turner Entertainment Co., Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. identifying Skydance Corporation as Corporate Parent. (Singer, David) (Entered: 10/20/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478148584/","id":478148584,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493767088/","id":493767088,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/65/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-09-16T00:05:02.534598-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T23:44:02.145429-07:00","sha1":"6764d935b57b5a5bde7b25aac7dbd1a1609f50cd","page_count":2,"file_size":44617,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.65.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.65.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 65 Filed 09/16/26 Page 1 of 2 Page ID\n Name and address: #:1431\n Jenner & Block LLP\n Mark D. Marciszewski (Bar No. 344240)\n mmarciszewski@jenner.com\n 515 S. Flower street, Suite 3300\n Los Angeles, CA 90071\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\nDisney Enterprises, Inc.; Universal City Studios CASE NUMBER:\nProductions LLLP; Warner Bros. Entertainment., et al. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n PLAINTIFF(S)\n v.\n\nMinimax, et al.\n NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OR\n WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL\n DEFENDANT(S)\n\n INSTRUCTIONS\nAppearance of Counsel:\nAttorneys may use this form to enter an appearance in a case, or to update the docket of a case to reflect a prior\nappearance. To do so, complete Sections I, II, and IV of this form, then file and serve the form in the case. (Using an\nattorney's CM/ECF login and password to file this form will expedite the addition of that attorney to the docket as counsel\nof record.)\nWithdrawal of Counsel:\nThis form may be used to terminate an attorney's status as counsel of record for a party in three situations: (1) the\nattorney being terminated has already been relieved by the Court, but the docket does not yet reflect that fact; (2) at least\none member of the attorney's firm or agency will continue to represent that party and the withdrawing attorney is not the\nonly member of the Bar of this Court representing that party; or (3) the represented party has been dismissed from the\ncase, but the attorneys are still receiving notices of electronic filing. For any of these situations, complete Sections I, III,\nand IV of this form, then file and serve the form in the case.\nNote: In situations not covered above, attorneys seeking to withdraw from a case must first obtain permission from the\nCourt. In such circumstances, attorneys should complete and file a \"Request for Approval of Substitution or Withdrawal of\nCounsel\" (Form G-01) rather than this \"Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel\" (Form G-123). See Form G-01 for\nfurther information.\nSECTION I - IDENTIFYING INFORMATION\nPlease complete the following information for the attorney you wish to add or remove (if removing an attorney, provide the\ninformation as it currently appears on the docket; if appearing pro hac vice, enter \"PHV\" in the field for \"CA Bar Number\"):\n\nName: Mark D. Marciszewski CA Bar Number: 344240\nFirm or agency: Jenner & Block LLP\nAddress: 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3300, Los Angeles, CA 90071\n\nTelephone Number: 213-239-5100 Fax Number: 213-239-5199\nEmail: MMarciszewski@jenner.com\nCounsel of record for the following party or parties: Disney Enterprises,Inc.,Marvel Characters, Inc.,MVL Film Finance\nLLC, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC,Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation,DreamWorks Animation LLC.,Warner Bros.\nEntertainment Inc.,DC Comics,The Cartoon Network, Inc.,Turner Entertainment Co.,Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc.\n\nG-123 (9/17) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL Page 1 of 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 65 Filed 09/16/26 Page 2 of 2 Page ID\n #:1432\nSECTION II - TO ADD AN ATTORNEY TO THE DOCKET\nPlease select one of the following options:\n The attorney listed above has already appeared as counsel of record in this case and should have been added to the\n docket. The date of the attorney's first appearance in this case: .\n The filing of this form constitutes the first appearance in this case of the attorney listed above. Other members of\n this attorney's firm or agency have previously appeared in the case.\n The filing of this form constitutes the first appearance in this case of the attorney listed above. No other members\n of this attorney's firm or agency have previously appeared in the case.\n By order of the court dated _____________________ in case number ________________________ (see attached\n copy), the attorney listed above may appear in this case without applying for admission to practice pro hac vice.\n This case was transferred to this district by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (\"JPML\") pursuant to 28\n U.S.C. \u00a7 1407 from the _______________ District of ____________________, where it was assigned case number\n ____________________. The attorney listed above is counsel of record in this case in the transferee district, and is\n permitted by the rules of the JPML to continue to represent his or her client in this district without applying for\n admission to practice pro hac vice and without the appointment of local counsel.\n On ______________________, the attorney listed above was granted permission to appear in this case pro hac vice\n before the Bankruptcy Court, and L.Bankr.R. 8 authorizes the continuation of that representation in this case before\n the District Court.\nIn addition, if this is a criminal case, please check the applicable box below. The attorney listed above is:\n USAO FPDO CJA Appointment Pro Bono Retained\n\n\nSECTION III - TO REMOVE AN ATTORNEY FROM THE DOCKET\nNotices of Electronic Filing will be terminated. Please select one of the following options:\n\n The attorney named above has already been relieved by the Court as counsel of record in this case and should\n have been removed from the docket. Date of the order relieving this attorney: .\n\n Please remove the attorney named above from the docket of this case; at least one member of the firm or agency\n named above, and at least one member of the Bar of this Court, will continue to serve as counsel of record for the\n party or parties indicated.\n (Note: if you are removing yourself from the docket of this case as a result of separating from a firm or agency, you\n should consult Local Rules 5-4.8.1 and 83-2.4 and Form G-06 (\u201cNotice of Change of Attorney Business or Contact\n Information\u201d), concerning your obligations to notify the Clerk and parties of changes in your business or contact\n information.)\n The represented party has been dismissed from the case, but the attorneys are still receiving notices of electronic\n filing. Date party was dismissed: .\n\n The attorney named above was appointed on appeal and the appeal has been adjudicated. Date the mandate was\n filed: .\n\nSECTION IV - SIGNATURE\n\nI request that the Clerk update the docket as indicated above.\n\n\n Date: September 16, 2026 Signature: /s/ Mark D. Marciszewski\n\n Name: Mark D. Marciszewski\n\nG-123 (9/17) NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL Page 2 of 2\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-16T00:05:02.957241-07:00","document_number":"65","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031048882779","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T00:05:02.435151-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T06:06:28.017638-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-16","time_filed":"00:03:54","entry_number":65,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":368,"description":"NOTICE of Appearance filed by attorney Mark D. Marciszewski on behalf of Plaintiffs DC Comics, Disney Enterprises, Inc., Dreamworks Animation L.L.C., Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, MVL Film Finance LLC, Marvel Characters, Inc, The Cartoon Network, Inc., Turner Entertainment Co., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (Attorney Mark D. Marciszewski added to party DC Comics(pty:pla), Attorney Mark D. Marciszewski added to party Disney Enterprises, Inc.(pty:pla), Attorney Mark D. Marciszewski added to party Dreamworks Animation L.L.C.(pty:pla), Attorney Mark D. Marciszewski added to party Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc.(pty:pla), Attorney Mark D. Marciszewski added to party Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC(pty:pla), Attorney Mark D. Marciszewski added to party MVL Film Finance LLC(pty:pla), Attorney Mark D. Marciszewski added to party Marvel Characters, Inc(pty:pla), Attorney Mark D. Marciszewski added to party The Cartoon Network, Inc.(pty:pla), Attorney Mark D. Marciszewski added to party Turner Entertainment Co.(pty:pla), Attorney Mark D. Marciszewski added to party Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation(pty:pla), Attorney Mark D. Marciszewski added to party Universal City Studios Productions LLLP(pty:pla), Attorney Mark D. Marciszewski added to party Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (pty:pla))(Marciszewski, Mark) (Entered: 09/16/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474070089/","id":474070089,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489558597/","id":489558597,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/64/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-08-11T14:10:59.431370-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T14:42:10.545830-07:00","sha1":"ccdfa97d7878a3aae187acc9504f69f207c42bd5","page_count":19,"file_size":223904,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.64.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.64.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/489558597.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 1 of 19 Page ID\n #:1412\n\n\n\n 1 JENNER & BLOCK LLP\n David R. Singer (SBN 204699)\n 2 dsinger@jenner.com\n 3 Julie A. Shepard (SBN 175538)\n jshepard@jenner.com\n 4 Lauren M. Greene (SBN 271397)\n 5 lgreene@jenner.com\n 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300\n 6 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246\n 7 Telephone:(213) 239-5100\n Facsimile: (213) 239-5199\n 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and\n Counterclaim-Defendants\n 9\n10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n12 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.; UNIVERSAL Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n13 CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP;\n WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., et [PROPOSED] STIPULATED\n14 al., PROTECTIVE ORDER\n15 Complaint Filed: September 16, 2025\n Plaintiffs,\n16 Trial Date: July 12, 2027\n v.\n17 MINIMAX, et al.,\n18 Defendants.\n\n19 NANONOBLE PTE. LTD.,\n20\n Counterclaimant,\n21\n v.\n22\n23 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., UNIVERSAL\n CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP,\n24 WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., et\n25 al.,\n26 Counterclaim-\n Defendants.\n27\n28\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 2 of 19 Page ID\n #:1413\n\n\n\n 1 1. GENERAL\n 2 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve\n 3 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special\n 4 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting\n 5 this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and\n 6 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order (the \u201cOrder\u201d).\n 7 The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all\n 8 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public\n 9 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled\n10 to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. However, the parties\n11 agree that all Discovery Material shall be used by the parties only for the purpose of\n12 conducting this litigation, including any appellate proceedings, and not by anyone\n13 else or for any other purpose. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section\n14 13.3, below, that this Order does not entitle them to file confidential information\n15 under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and\n16 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file\n17 material under seal.\n18 1.2 Good Cause Statement.\n19 This action involves Defendants\u2019 alleged infringement of Plaintiffs\u2019\n20 copyrighted works in connection with Defendants\u2019 generative artificial intelligence\n21 (AI) image and video service (\u201cDefendants\u2019 Service\u201d). Discovery in this litigation\n22 may include the development, training, operation, outputs, policies, business plans,\n23 contractual arrangements and revenues of Defendants and their AI Service, some of\n24 which Defendants consider and treat as confidential and/or proprietary. Likewise,\n25 discovery may include information about Plaintiffs\u2019 business plans and contractual\n26 arrangements, as well as harms Plaintiffs allege are caused by Defendants\u2019 Service,\n27 some of which Plaintiffs consider and treat as confidential and/or proprietary.\n28 Discovery into the foregoing types of information warrants protection from public\n\n -2-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 3 of 19 Page ID\n #:1414\n\n\n\n 1 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action. Such\n 2 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things,\n 3 confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential\n 4 business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial\n 5 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties),\n 6 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged\n 7 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case\n 8 decisions, or common law.\n 9 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt\n10 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately\n11 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the\n12 parties are permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in preparation for\n13 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and\n14 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this\n15 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as\n16 Confidential or Highly Confidential \u2013 Attorneys\u2019 Eyes Only for tactical reasons and\n17 that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained\n18 in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be\n19 part of the public record of this case.\n20 2. DEFINITIONS\n21 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit.\n22 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the\n23 designation of information or items under this Order.\n24 2.3 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d Information or Items: information (regardless of\n25 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection\n26 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).\n27 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as\n28 their support staff).\n -3-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 4 of 19 Page ID\n #:1415\n\n\n\n 1 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information\n 2 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as\n 3 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n 4 ONLY.\u201d\n 5 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless\n 6 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including,\n 7 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or\n 8 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.\n 9 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter\n10 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as\n11 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action.\n12 2.8 \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d\n13 Information or Items: extremely sensitive \u201cConfidential Information or Items,\u201d\n14 disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of\n15 serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.\n16 2.9 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action.\n17 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside\n18 counsel.\n19 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association,\n20 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.\n21 2.11 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a\n22 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and\n23 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm\n24 that has appeared on behalf of that party, including support staff. For the avoidance\n25 of doubt, separate firms or solo practitioners cannot be Counsel of Record unless they\n26 formally appear in the case.\n27\n28\n -4-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 5 of 19 Page ID\n #:1416\n\n\n\n 1 2.12 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors,\n 2 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their\n 3 support staffs).\n 4 2.13 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or\n 5 Discovery Material in this Action.\n 6 2.14 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation\n 7 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or\n 8 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium)\n 9 and their employees and subcontractors.\n10 2.15 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is\n11 designated as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n12 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY.\u201d\n13 2.16 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery\n14 Material from a Producing Party.\n15 3. SCOPE\n16 The protections conferred by this Order cover not only Protected Material (as\n17 defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected\n18 Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material;\n19 and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that\n20 might reveal Protected Material.\n21 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the\n22 trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial.\n23 4. DURATION\n24 Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the court-filed information to be introduced\n25 that was previously designated as confidential or maintained pursuant to this\n26 protective order becomes public and will be presumptively available to all members\n27 of the public, including the press, unless compelling reasons supported by specific\n28 factual findings to proceed otherwise are made to the trial judge in advance of the\n -5-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 6 of 19 Page ID\n #:1417\n\n\n\n 1 trial. See Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir.\n 2 2006) (distinguishing \u201cgood cause\u201d showing for sealing documents produced in\n 3 discovery from \u201ccompelling reasons\u201d standard when merits-related documents are\n 4 part of court record). Accordingly, the terms of this protective order do not extend\n 5 beyond the commencement of the trial. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the\n 6 obligations set forth in Sections 7.1, 10, and 13 of this Order shall survive the final\n 7 disposition of this Action.\n 8 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL\n 9 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection.\n10 Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under\n11 this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that\n12 qualifies under the appropriate standards. To the extent it is practical to do so, the\n13 Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of material,\n14 documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify so that other\n15 portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection\n16 is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order.\n17 Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations\n18 that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper\n19 purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber the case development process or to impose\n20 unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Designating\n21 Party to sanctions.\n22 If it comes to a Designating Party\u2019s attention that information or items that it\n23 designated for protection do not qualify for protection, that Designating Party must\n24 promptly notify all other Parties that it is withdrawing the inapplicable designation.\n25 5.2 Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided in\n26 this Order (see, e.g., second paragraph of Section 5.2(a) below), or as otherwise\n27 stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection\n28\n -6-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 7 of 19 Page ID\n #:1418\n\n\n\n 1 under this Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or\n 2 produced.\n 3 Designation in conformity with this Order requires:\n 4 (a) for information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic\n 5 documents, but excluding transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial\n 6 proceedings), that the Producing Party affix, at a minimum, the legend\n 7 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n 8 ONLY\u201d (hereinafter \u201cCONFIDENTIAL legend\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\n 9 legend,\u201d to each page of each document that contains protected material, or, in the\n10 case of an electronic document that is produced in native form or is impracticable to\n11 produce in a form with the affixed legend, by placing the legend on a placeholder\n12 document bearing the document\u2019s production number or by placing the designation\n13 in the file name of the native file. If only a portion or portions of the material on a\n14 page qualifies for protection, to the extent practical the Producing Party also must\n15 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the\n16 margins).\n17 A Party or Non-Party that makes original documents available for inspection\n18 need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has indicated\n19 which documents it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and\n20 before the designation, all of the material made available for inspection shall be\n21 deemed either \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n22 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY.\u201d After the inspecting Party has identified the\n23 documents it wants copied and produced, the Producing Party must determine which\n24 documents, or portions thereof, qualify for protection under this Order. Then, before\n25 producing the specified documents, the Producing Party must affix the\n26 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL legend\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019\n27 EYES ONLY legend\u201d to each page that contains Protected Material. If only a portion\n28 or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, to the extent practical\n -7-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 8 of 19 Page ID\n #:1419\n\n\n\n 1 the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by\n 2 making appropriate markings in the margins).\n 3 (b) for testimony given in depositions that the Designating Party identify\n 4 the Disclosure or Discovery Material on the record, before the close of the deposition,\n 5 or in writing within 14 days following receipt of the final transcript. During the 14\n 6 day period for designation, the Parties shall treat any transcript that was not\n 7 designated on the record as if it had been designated \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n 8 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d in its entirety. After the expiration of that period or\n 9 such earlier time that such transcript is designated, the transcript will be treated only\n10 as actually designated.\n11 (c) for information produced in some form other than documentary and for\n12 any other tangible items, that the Producing Party affix in a prominent place on the\n13 exterior of the container or containers in which the information is stored the legend\n14 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n15 ONLY.\u201d If only a portion or portions of the information warrants protection, to the\n16 extent practical the Producing Party, to the extent practicable, shall identify the\n17 protected portion(s).\n18 5.3 Inadvertent Failures to Designate. If timely corrected, an inadvertent\n19 failure to designate qualified information or items does not, standing alone, waive the\n20 Designating Party's right to secure protection under this Order for such material. To\n21 correct such an inadvertent failure, the Producing Party shall give written notice of\n22 the correction (a \u201cRe-Designation Notice\u201d) and shall reproduce copies of the affected\n23 material labeled with the appropriate confidentiality designation. Upon receipt of a\n24 Re-Designation Notice and properly labeled material, the Receiving Party shall\n25 promptly either (a) destroy the originally produced, unlabeled copies and all\n26 duplicates thereof and notify the Producing Party in writing of such destruction within\n27 thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the Re-Designation Notice, or (b) return the\n28 originally produced, unlabeled copies and all duplicates thereof to counsel for the\n -8-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 9 of 19 Page ID\n #:1420\n\n\n\n 1 Producing Party within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the Re-Designation\n 2 Notice. From the date of receipt of a Re-Designation Notice, the Receiving Party\n 3 must treat the affected material in accordance with the provisions of this Order.\n 4 6. CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS\n 5 6.1 Timing of Challenges. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a\n 6 designation of confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court\u2019s\n 7 Scheduling Order. Unless a prompt challenge to a Designating Party\u2019s confidentiality\n 8 designation is necessary to avoid foreseeable, substantial unfairness, unnecessary\n 9 economic burdens, or a significant disruption or delay of the litigation, a Party does\n10 not waive its right to challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount\n11 a challenge promptly after the original designation is disclosed.\n12 6.2 Meet and Confer. The Challenging Party shall initiate the dispute\n13 resolution process under Local Rule 37-1, et seq. Any discovery motion must strictly\n14 comply with the procedures set forth in Local Rules 37-1, 37-2, and 37-3.\n15 6.3 Burden. The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding\n16 shall be on the Designating Party. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an\n17 improper purpose (e.g., to harass or impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on\n18 other parties) may expose the Challenging Party to sanctions. Unless the Designating\n19 Party has waived or withdrawn the confidentiality designation, all parties shall\n20 continue to afford the material in question the level of protection to which it is entitled\n21 under the Producing Party\u2019s designation until the Court rules on the challenge.\n22 7. ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL\n23 7.1 Basic Principles. A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is\n24 disclosed or produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with this\n25 Action only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this Action. Such\n26 Protected Material may be disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the\n27 conditions described in this Order. When the Action has been terminated, a Receiving\n28 Party must comply with the provisions of Section 14 below (FINAL DISPOSITION).\n -9-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 10 of 19 Page ID\n #:1421\n\n\n\n 1 Protected Material must be stored and maintained by a Receiving Party at a\n 2 location and in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons\n 3 authorized under this Order.\n 4 7.2 Disclosure of \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d Information or Items. Unless\n 5 otherwise ordered by the Court or permitted in writing by the Designating Party, a\n 6 Receiving Party may disclose any information or item designated\n 7 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d only to:\n 8 (a) the Receiving Party\u2019s Outside Counsel of Record in this Action, as well\n 9 as employees of said Outside Counsel of Record, and Professional Vendors engaged\n10 via said Outside Counsel of Record or via the Receiving Party, to whom it is\n11 reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this Action;\n12 (b) the officers, directors, and employees (including House Counsel) of the\n13 Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action;\n14 (c) Experts (as defined in this Order) of the Receiving Party to whom\n15 disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action and who have signed the\n16 \u201cAcknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound\u201d (Exhibit A);\n17 (d) the Court and its personnel;\n18 (e) court reporters and their staff;\n19 (f) professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors, and Professional\n20 Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action and who have\n21 signed the \u201cAcknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound\u201d (Exhibit A);\n22 (g) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a\n23 custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information;\n24 (h) during their depositions, witnesses, and, as to Non-Parties, attorneys for\n25 witnesses, in the Action to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary provided: (1) the\n26 deposing party requests that the witness sign the form attached as Exhibit A hereto;\n27 and (2) they will not be permitted to keep any confidential information unless they\n28 sign the \u201cAcknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound\u201d (Exhibit A), unless\n -10-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 11 of 19 Page ID\n #:1422\n\n\n\n 1 otherwise agreed by the Designating Party or ordered by the Court. Pages of\n 2 transcribed deposition testimony or exhibits to depositions that reveal Protected\n 3 Material may be separately bound by the court reporter and may not be disclosed to\n 4 anyone except as permitted under this Stipulated Protective Order; and\n 5 (i) any mediator or settlement officer, and their supporting personnel,\n 6 mutually agreed upon by all parties to the settlement discussions.\n 7 7.3 Disclosure of \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019\n 8 EYES ONLY\u201d Information or Items. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court or\n 9 permitted in writing by the Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose any\n10 information or item designated \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019\n11 EYES ONLY\u201d only to:\n12 (a) the Receiving Party\u2019s Outside Counsel of Record in this Action, as well\n13 as employees of said Outside Counsel of Record, and Professional Vendors engaged\n14 via said Outside Counsel of Record or via the Receiving Party, to whom it is\n15 reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this Action;\n16 (b) Experts (as defined in this Order) of the Receiving Party (i) to whom\n17 disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action, (ii) who have signed the\n18 \u201cAcknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound\u201d (Exhibit A), and (iii) as to whom\n19 the procedures set forth in Section 7.4, below, have been followed;\n20 (c) the Court and its personnel;\n21 (d) court reporters and their staff;\n22 (e) professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors, to whom disclosure\n23 is reasonably necessary for this Action and who have signed the \u201cAcknowledgment\n24 and Agreement to Be Bound\u201d (Exhibit A);\n25 (f) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a\n26 custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information; and\n27 (g) any mediator or settlement officer, and their supporting personnel,\n28 mutually agreed upon by all parties to the settlement discussions.\n -11-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 12 of 19 Page ID\n #:1423\n\n\n\n 1 7.4 Procedures for Approving or Objecting to Disclosure of \u201cHIGHLY\n 2 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d Information or Items to Experts.\n 3 (a) Unless otherwise ordered by the court or agreed to in writing by the\n 4 Designating Party, a Party that seeks to disclose to an Expert (as defined in this Order)\n 5 any information or item that has been designated \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n 6 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d pursuant to paragraph 7.3(b) first must make a written\n 7 request to the Designating Party that (1) identifies the general categories of\n 8 \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d information that the\n 9 Receiving Party seeks permission to disclose to the Expert, (2) sets forth the full name\n10 of the Expert and the city and state of his or her primary residence, (3) attaches a copy\n11 of the Expert\u2019s current resume, (4) identifies the Expert\u2019s current employer(s), (5)\n12 identifies each person or entity from whom the Expert has received compensation or\n13 funding for work in his or her areas of expertise or to whom the expert has provided\n14 professional services, including in connection with a litigation, at any time during the\n15 preceding four years, and (6) identifies (by name and number of the case, filing date,\n16 and location of court) any litigation in connection with which the Expert has offered\n17 expert testimony, including through a declaration, report, or testimony at a deposition\n18 or trial, during the preceding five years.1\n19 (b) A Party that makes a request and provides the information specified in\n20 the preceding respective paragraphs may disclose the subject Protected Material to\n21 the identified Expert unless, within ten (10) calendar days of delivering the request,\n22 the Party receives a written objection from the Designating Party. Any such objection\n23 must set forth in detail the grounds on which it is based.\n24\n25 1\n If the Expert believes any of this information is subject to a confidentiality\n26 obligation to a third-party, then the Expert should provide whatever information the\n27 Expert believes can be disclosed without violating any confidentiality agreements,\n and the Party seeking to disclose to the Expert shall be available to meet and confer\n28 with the Designating Party regarding any such engagement.\n -12-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 13 of 19 Page ID\n #:1424\n\n\n\n 1 (c) A Party that receives a timely written objection must meet and confer\n 2 with the Designating Party (through direct voice to voice dialogue) to try to resolve\n 3 the matter by agreement within seven (7) calendar days of the written objection. If no\n 4 agreement is reached, the Party seeking to make the disclosure to the Expert may\n 5 seek the Court\u2019s relief.\n 6 (d) In any such proceeding, the Party opposing disclosure to the Expert shall\n 7 bear the burden of proving that the risk of harm that the disclosure would entail (under\n 8 the safeguards proposed) outweighs the Receiving Party\u2019s need to disclose the\n 9 Protected Material to its Expert.\n10 8. PROTECTED MATERIAL SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED\n11 PRODUCED IN OTHER LITIGATION\n12 If a Party is served with a subpoena or a court order issued in other litigation\n13 that compels disclosure of any information or items designated in this Action as\n14 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n15 ONLY,\u201d that Party must:\n16 (a) promptly notify in writing the Designating Party. Such notification shall\n17 include a copy of the subpoena or court order;\n18 (b) promptly notify in writing the party who caused the subpoena or order to\n19 issue in the other litigation that some or all of the material covered by the subpoena\n20 or order is subject to this Order. Such notification shall include a copy of this Order;\n21 and\n22 (c) cooperate with respect to all reasonable procedures sought to be pursued\n23 by the Designating Party whose Protected Material may be affected.\n24 If the Designating Party timely seeks a protective order, the Party served with\n25 the subpoena or court order shall not produce any information designated in this action\n26 as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n27 ONLY,\u201d before a determination by the court from which the subpoena or order issued,\n28 unless the Party has obtained the Designating Party\u2019s permission. The Designating\n -13-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 14 of 19 Page ID\n #:1425\n\n\n\n 1 Party shall bear the burden and expense of seeking protection in that court of its\n 2 confidential material and nothing in these provisions should be construed as\n 3 authorizing or encouraging a Receiving Party in this Action to disobey a lawful\n 4 directive from another court.\n 5 9. A NON-PARTY\u2019S PROTECTED MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE\n 6 PRODUCED IN THIS LITIGATION\n 7 (a) The terms of this Order are applicable to information produced by a Non-\n 8 Party in this Action and designated as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY\n 9 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY.\u201d Such information produced by\n10 Non-Parties in connection with this litigation is protected by the remedies and relief\n11 provided by this Order. Nothing in these provisions should be construed as\n12 prohibiting a Non-Party from seeking additional protections.\n13 (b) In the event that a Party is required, by a valid discovery request, to\n14 produce a Non-Party\u2019s confidential information in its possession, and the Party is\n15 subject to an agreement with the Non-Party not to produce the Non-Party\u2019s\n16 confidential information, then the Party shall:\n17 (1) promptly notify in writing the Requesting Party and the Non-Party\n18 that some or all of the information requested is subject to a confidentiality agreement\n19 with a Non-Party;\n20 (2) promptly provide the Non-Party with a copy of this Order, the\n21 relevant discovery request(s), and a reasonably specific description of the information\n22 requested; and\n23 (3) make the information requested available for inspection by the Non-\n24 Party, if requested.\n25 (c) If the Non-Party fails to seek a protective order from this Court within 14\n26 days of receiving the notice and accompanying information, the Receiving Party may\n27 produce the Non-Party\u2019s confidential information responsive to the discovery\n28 request. If the Non-Party timely seeks a protective order, the Receiving Party shall\n -14-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 15 of 19 Page ID\n #:1426\n\n\n\n 1 not produce any information in its possession or control that is subject to the\n 2 confidentiality agreement with the Non-Party before a determination by the Court.\n 3 Absent a court order to the contrary, the Non-Party shall bear the burden and expense\n 4 of seeking protection in this Court of its Protected Material.\n 5 10. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL\n 6 (a) If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has\n 7 disclosed Protected Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized\n 8 under this Order, the Receiving Party must immediately (i) notify in writing the\n 9 Designating Party of the unauthorized disclosures, (ii) use its best efforts to retrieve\n10 all unauthorized copies of the Protected Material, (iii) inform the person or persons\n11 to whom unauthorized disclosures were made of all the terms of this Order, and (iv)\n12 request such person or persons to execute the \u201cAcknowledgment and Agreement to\n13 Be Bound\u201d that is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n14 (b) To the extent that Protected Material is lost or is the subject of an actual or\n15 suspected security breach, the Receiving Party shall (i) provide written notice to the\n16 Designating Party of such loss or breach; (ii) investigate and make reasonable efforts\n17 to remediate the effects of the loss or breach, and provide the Designating Party with\n18 assurances reasonably satisfactory to Designating Party that such loss or breach will\n19 not reoccur; and (iii) provide sufficient information about the loss or breach that the\n20 Designating Party can reasonably ascertain the size and scope of the loss or breach.\n21 The Receiving Party agrees to cooperate, to the extent reasonably practicable, with\n22 the Designating Party in investigating any such security incident. In any event, the\n23 Receiving Party shall promptly take all necessary and appropriate corrective action\n24 to resolve the security breach.\n25 11. INADVERTENT PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED OR OTHERWISE\n26 PROTECTED MATERIAL\n27 When a Producing Party gives notice to Receiving Parties that certain\n28 inadvertently produced material is subject to a claim of privilege or other protection,\n -15-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 16 of 19 Page ID\n #:1427\n\n\n\n 1 the obligations of the Receiving Parties are those set forth in Federal Rule of Civil\n 2 Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure\n 3 may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior\n 4 privilege review. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) and (e), insofar as the\n 5 parties reach an agreement on the effect of disclosure of a communication or\n 6 information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection, the\n 7 parties may incorporate their agreement in the stipulated protective order submitted\n 8 to the Court.\n 9 12. MISCELLANEOUS\n10 13.1 Right to Further Relief. Nothing in this Order abridges the right of any\n11 person to seek its modification by the Court in the future.\n12 13.2 Right to Assert Other Objections. By stipulating to the entry of this\n13 Protective Order, no Party waives any right it otherwise would have to object to\n14 disclosing or producing any information or item on any ground not addressed in this\n15 Stipulated Protective Order. Similarly, no Party waives any right to object on any\n16 ground to use in evidence of any of the material covered by this Protective Order.\n17 13.3 Filing Protected Material. A Party that seeks to file under seal any\n18 Protected Material must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Protected Material may\n19 only be filed under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of the\n20 specific Protected Material at issue; good cause must be shown in the request to file\n21 under seal. If a Party\u2019s request to file Protected Material under seal is denied by the\n22 Court, then the Receiving Party may file the information in the public record unless\n23 otherwise instructed by the Court.\n24 13. FINAL DISPOSITION\n25 After the final disposition of this Action, as defined within Section 4, within\n26 60 days of a written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must, at\n27 the Receiving Party\u2019s election, return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or\n28 destroy such material. As used in this subdivision, \u201call Protected Material\u201d includes\n -16-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 17 of 19 Page ID\n #:1428\n\n\n\n 1 all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or\n 2 capturing any of the Protected Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned\n 3 or destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written certification to the Producing\n 4 Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the Designating Party) by the 60 day\n 5 deadline that (1) identifies (by category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material\n 6 that was returned or destroyed, and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has not\n 7 retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format\n 8 reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Notwithstanding this\n 9 provision, counsel are entitled to retain an archival copy of all pleadings, motion\n10 papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence,\n11 deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant\n12 and expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected Material. Counsel\n13 are not required to search their email and disaster recovery systems to comply with\n14 this paragraph. Any retained archival or remaining copies that contain or constitute\n15 Protected Material remain subject to this Protective Order as set forth in Section 4\n16 (DURATION).\n17 14. VIOLATION OF ORDER\n18 Any violation of this Order may be punished by any and all appropriate\n19 measures including, without limitation, contempt proceedings and/or monetary\n20 sanctions.\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n -17-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 18 of 19 Page ID\n #:1429\n\n\n\n 1 Dated: August 7, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n 2 JENNER & BLOCK LLP\n 3 David R. Singer\n Julie A. Shepard\n 4 Lauren M. Greene\n 5\n 6 By:\n 7 David R. Singer\n Attorney for Plaintiffs and\n 8 CounterclaimDefendants\n 9\n10 Dated: August 7, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n11 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART\n12 & SULLIVAN, LLP\n Robert M. Schwartz\n13\n Daniel C. Posner\n14 Haiyan Tang\n15 Aaron Perahia\n Bradley Kahn\n16\n17 By:\n18 Robert M. Schwartz\n19 Attorneys for Defendants and\n20 Counterclaimant\n\n21\n FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED.\n22\n23\n24 DATED: 8/7/2026\n25\n __________________________\n26 HON. CHARLES F. EICK\n United States Magistrate Judge\n27\n28\n -18-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 64 Filed 08/07/26 Page 19 of 19 Page ID\n #:1430\n\n\n\n 1 EXHIBIT A\n 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND\n 3\n 4 I, _____________________________ [full name], of _________________ [full\n 5 address], declare under penalty of perjury that I have read in its entirety and understand\n 6 the Stipulated Protective Order that was issued by the United States District Court for the\n 7 Central District of California on ____________ [date] in the case of Disney Enterprises,\n 8 Inc. et Al. v. MiniMax, et al., C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E. I agree to comply\n 9 with and to be bound by all the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order and I understand\n10 and acknowledge that failure to so comply could expose me to sanctions and punishment\n11 in the nature of contempt. I solemnly promise that I will not disclose in any manner any\n12 information or item that is subject to this Stipulated Protective Order to any person or\n13 entity except in strict compliance with the provisions of this Order.\n14 I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for\n15 the Central District of California for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulated\n16 Protective Order, even if such enforcement proceedings occur after termination of this\n17 action. I hereby appoint __________________________ [full name] of\n18 _______________________________________ [full address and telephone number]\n19 as my California agent for service of process in connection with this action or any\n20 proceedings related to enforcement of this Stipulated Protective Order.\n21 Date: ______________________________________\n22 City and State where signed: _________________________________\n23\n24 Printed name: _______________________________\n25\n26 Signature: __________________________________\n27\n28\n -19-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-11T14:10:59.645079-07:00","document_number":"64","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031048569191","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Protective Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-11T14:10:59.403833-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T06:06:27.982665-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-07","time_filed":"14:09:03","entry_number":64,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-07.002","pacer_sequence_number":365,"description":"STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick re Stipulation for Protective Order, 63 (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (sh) (Entered: 08/11/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473704315/","id":473704315,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489178566/","id":489178566,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/63/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-08-07T14:57:43.515957-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T17:25:09.287607-07:00","sha1":"ca9b64c2d9b40d14f5fd1814f176509dc8d0dc50","page_count":19,"file_size":77047,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.63.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.63.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/489178566.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 1 of 19 Page ID\n #:1393\n\n\n\n 1 JENNER & BLOCK LLP\n David R. Singer (SBN 204699)\n 2\n dsinger@jenner.com\n 3 Julie A. Shepard (SBN 175538)\n jshepard@jenner.com\n 4\n Lauren M. Greene (SBN 271397)\n 5 lgreene@jenner.com\n 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300\n 6\n Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246\n 7 Telephone: (213) 239-5100\n 8 Facsimile: (213) 239-5199\n 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and\n Counterclaim-Defendants\n10\n11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n13 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.; Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS\n14\n PRODUCTIONS LLLP; WARNER\n15 BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., et al., [PROPOSED] STIPULATED\n PROTECTIVE ORDER\n16 Plaintiffs, Complaint filed: September 16, 2025\n17 v. Trial Date: July 12, 2027\n18 MINIMAX, et al.,\n19 Defendants.\n20\n21 NANONOBLE PTE. LTD.,\n22 Counterclaimant,\n23 v.\n24\n DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.,\n25 UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS\n PRODUCTIONS LLLP; WARNER\n26\n BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., et al.,\n27\n Counterclaim-Defendants.\n28\n\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 2 of 19 Page ID\n #:1394\n\n\n\n 1 1. GENERAL\n 2 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve\n 3 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special\n 4 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting\n 5 this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and\n 6 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order (the \u201cOrder\u201d).\n 7 The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all\n 8 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public\n 9 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to\n10 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. However, the parties\n11 agree that all Discovery Material shall be used by the parties only for the purpose of\n12 conducting this litigation, including any appellate proceedings, and not by anyone else\n13 or for any other purpose. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 13.3,\n14 below, that this Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal;\n15 Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the\n16 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file\n17 material under seal.\n18 1.2 Good Cause Statement.\n19 This action involves Defendants\u2019 alleged infringement of Plaintiffs\u2019\n20 copyrighted works in connection with Defendants\u2019 generative artificial intelligence\n21 (AI) image and video service (\u201cDefendants\u2019 Service\u201d). Discovery in this litigation\n22 may include the development, training, operation, outputs, policies, business plans,\n23 contractual arrangements and revenues of Defendants and their AI Service, some of\n24 which Defendants consider and treat as confidential and/or proprietary. Likewise,\n25 discovery may include information about Plaintiffs\u2019 business plans and contractual\n26 arrangements, as well as harms Plaintiffs allege are caused by Defendants\u2019 Service,\n27 some of which Plaintiffs consider and treat as confidential and/or proprietary.\n28 Discovery into the foregoing types of information warrants protection from public\n -2-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 3 of 19 Page ID\n #:1395\n\n\n\n 1 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action. Such\n 2 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things,\n 3 confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential\n 4 business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial\n 5 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties),\n 6 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged\n 7 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case\n 8 decisions, or common law.\n 9 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt\n10 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately\n11 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the\n12 parties are permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in preparation for\n13 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and\n14 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this\n15 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as\n16 Confidential or Highly Confidential \u2013 Attorneys\u2019 Eyes Only for tactical reasons and\n17 that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained\n18 in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be\n19 part of the public record of this case.\n20 2. DEFINITIONS\n21 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit.\n22 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation\n23 of information or items under this Order.\n24 2.3 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d Information or Items: information (regardless of\n25 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection\n26 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).\n27 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their\n28 support staff).\n -3-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 4 of 19 Page ID\n #:1396\n\n\n\n 1 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or\n 2 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as\n 3 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n 4 ONLY.\u201d\n 5 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless\n 6 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including,\n 7 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or\n 8 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.\n 9 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter\n10 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as\n11 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action.\n12 2.8 \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d\n13 Information or Items: extremely sensitive \u201cConfidential Information or Items,\u201d\n14 disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of\n15 serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.\n16 2.9 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action.\n17 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside\n18 counsel.\n19 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or\n20 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.\n21 2.11 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party\n22 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have\n23 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that\n24 has appeared on behalf of that party, including support staff. For the avoidance of\n25 doubt, separate firms or solo practitioners cannot be Counsel of Record unless they\n26 formally appear in the case.\n27\n28\n -4-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 5 of 19 Page ID\n #:1397\n\n\n\n 1 2.12 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors,\n 2 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their\n 3 support staffs).\n 4 2.13 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or\n 5 Discovery Material in this Action.\n 6 2.14 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support\n 7 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or\n 8 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium)\n 9 and their employees and subcontractors.\n10 2.15 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is\n11 designated as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019\n12 EYES ONLY.\u201d\n13 2.16 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material\n14 from a Producing Party.\n15 3. SCOPE\n16 The protections conferred by this Order cover not only Protected Material (as\n17 defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected\n18 Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material;\n19 and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that\n20 might reveal Protected Material.\n21 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the\n22 trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial.\n23 4. DURATION\n24 Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the court-filed information to be introduced\n25 that was previously designated as confidential or maintained pursuant to this\n26 protective order becomes public and will be presumptively available to all members\n27 of the public, including the press, unless compelling reasons supported by specific\n28 factual findings to proceed otherwise are made to the trial judge in advance of the\n -5-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 6 of 19 Page ID\n #:1398\n\n\n\n 1 trial. See Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir.\n 2 2006) (distinguishing \u201cgood cause\u201d showing for sealing documents produced in\n 3 discovery from \u201ccompelling reasons\u201d standard when merits-related documents are\n 4 part of court record). Accordingly, the terms of this protective order do not extend\n 5 beyond the commencement of the trial. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the\n 6 obligations set forth in Sections 7.1, 10, and 13 of this Order shall survive the final\n 7 disposition of this Action.\n 8 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL\n 9 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection.\n10 Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this\n11 Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies\n12 under the appropriate standards. To the extent it is practical to do so, the Designating\n13 Party must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or\n14 oral or written communications that qualify so that other portions of the material,\n15 documents, items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not\n16 swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order.\n17 Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations\n18 that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper\n19 purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber the case development process or to impose\n20 unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Designating Party\n21 to sanctions.\n22 If it comes to a Designating Party\u2019s attention that information or items that it\n23 designated for protection do not qualify for protection, that Designating Party must\n24 promptly notify all other Parties that it is withdrawing the inapplicable designation.\n25 5.2 Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided in\n26 this Order (see, e.g., second paragraph of Section 5.2(a) below), or as otherwise\n27 stipulated or ordered, Disclosure or Discovery Material that qualifies for protection\n28\n -6-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 7 of 19 Page ID\n #:1399\n\n\n\n 1 under this Order must be clearly so designated before the material is disclosed or\n 2 produced.\n 3 Designation in conformity with this Order requires:\n 4 (a) for information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic\n 5 documents, but excluding transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial\n 6 proceedings), that the Producing Party affix, at a minimum, the legend\n 7 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n 8 ONLY\u201d (hereinafter \u201cCONFIDENTIAL legend\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL\n 9 legend,\u201d to each page of each document that contains protected material, or, in the\n10 case of an electronic document that is produced in native form or is impracticable to\n11 produce in a form with the affixed legend, by placing the legend on a placeholder\n12 document bearing the document\u2019s production number or by placing the designation\n13 in the file name of the native file. If only a portion or portions of the material on a\n14 page qualifies for protection, to the extent practical the Producing Party also must\n15 clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the\n16 margins).\n17 A Party or Non-Party that makes original documents available for inspection\n18 need not designate them for protection until after the inspecting Party has indicated\n19 which documents it would like copied and produced. During the inspection and\n20 before the designation, all of the material made available for inspection shall be\n21 deemed either \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n22 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY.\u201d After the inspecting Party has identified the\n23 documents it wants copied and produced, the Producing Party must determine which\n24 documents, or portions thereof, qualify for protection under this Order. Then, before\n25 producing the specified documents, the Producing Party must affix the\n26 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL legend\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n27 ONLY legend\u201d to each page that contains Protected Material. If only a portion or\n28 portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, to the extent practical the\n -7-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 8 of 19 Page ID\n #:1400\n\n\n\n 1 Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making\n 2 appropriate markings in the margins).\n 3 (b) for testimony given in depositions that the Designating Party identify\n 4 the Disclosure or Discovery Material on the record, before the close of the deposition,\n 5 or in writing within 14 days following receipt of the final transcript. During the 14\n 6 day period for designation, the Parties shall treat any transcript that was not designated\n 7 on the record as if it had been designated \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n 8 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d in its entirety. After the expiration of that period or\n 9 such earlier time that such transcript is designated, the transcript will be treated only\n10 as actually designated.\n11 (c) for information produced in some form other than documentary and for\n12 any other tangible items, that the Producing Party affix in a prominent place on the\n13 exterior of the container or containers in which the information is stored the legend\n14 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n15 ONLY.\u201d If only a portion or portions of the information warrants protection, to the\n16 extent practical the Producing Party, to the extent practicable, shall identify the\n17 protected portion(s).\n18 5.3 Inadvertent Failures to Designate. If timely corrected, an inadvertent\n19 failure to designate qualified information or items does not, standing alone, waive the\n20 Designating Party's right to secure protection under this Order for such material. To\n21 correct such an inadvertent failure, the Producing Party shall give written notice of\n22 the correction (a \u201cRe-Designation Notice\u201d) and shall reproduce copies of the affected\n23 material labeled with the appropriate confidentiality designation. Upon receipt of a\n24 Re-Designation Notice and properly labeled material, the Receiving Party shall\n25 promptly either (a) destroy the originally produced, unlabeled copies and all\n26 duplicates thereof and notify the Producing Party in writing of such destruction within\n27 thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the Re-Designation Notice, or (b) return the\n28 originally produced, unlabeled copies and all duplicates thereof to counsel for the\n -8-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 9 of 19 Page ID\n #:1401\n\n\n\n 1 Producing Party within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the Re-Designation\n 2 Notice. From the date of receipt of a Re-Designation Notice, the Receiving Party\n 3 must treat the affected material in accordance with the provisions of this Order.\n 4 6. CHALLENGING CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATIONS\n 5 6.1 Timing of Challenges. Any Party or Non-Party may challenge a\n 6 designation of confidentiality at any time that is consistent with the Court\u2019s\n 7 Scheduling Order. Unless a prompt challenge to a Designating Party\u2019s confidentiality\n 8 designation is necessary to avoid foreseeable, substantial unfairness, unnecessary\n 9 economic burdens, or a significant disruption or delay of the litigation, a Party does\n10 not waive its right to challenge a confidentiality designation by electing not to mount\n11 a challenge promptly after the original designation is disclosed.\n12 6.2 Meet and Confer. The Challenging Party shall initiate the dispute\n13 resolution process under Local Rule 37-1, et seq. Any discovery motion must strictly\n14 comply with the procedures set forth in Local Rules 37-1, 37-2, and 37-3.\n15 6.3 Burden. The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding\n16 shall be on the Designating Party. Frivolous challenges, and those made for an\n17 improper purpose (e.g., to harass or impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on\n18 other parties) may expose the Challenging Party to sanctions. Unless the Designating\n19 Party has waived or withdrawn the confidentiality designation, all parties shall\n20 continue to afford the material in question the level of protection to which it is entitled\n21 under the Producing Party\u2019s designation until the Court rules on the challenge.\n22 7. ACCESS TO AND USE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL\n23 7.1 Basic Principles. A Receiving Party may use Protected Material that is\n24 disclosed or produced by another Party or by a Non-Party in connection with this\n25 Action only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this Action. Such\n26 Protected Material may be disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the\n27 conditions described in this Order. When the Action has been terminated, a Receiving\n28 Party must comply with the provisions of Section 14 below (FINAL DISPOSITION).\n -9-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 10 of 19 Page ID\n #:1402\n\n\n\n 1 Protected Material must be stored and maintained by a Receiving Party at a\n 2 location and in a secure manner that ensures that access is limited to the persons\n 3 authorized under this Order.\n 4 7.2 Disclosure of \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d Information or Items. Unless\n 5 otherwise ordered by the Court or permitted in writing by the Designating Party, a\n 6 Receiving Party may disclose any information or item designated\n 7 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d only to:\n 8 (a) the Receiving Party\u2019s Outside Counsel of Record in this Action, as well\n 9 as employees of said Outside Counsel of Record, and Professional Vendors engaged\n10 via said Outside Counsel of Record or via the Receiving Party, to whom it is\n11 reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this Action;\n12 (b) the officers, directors, and employees (including House Counsel) of the\n13 Receiving Party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action;\n14 (c) Experts (as defined in this Order) of the Receiving Party to whom\n15 disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action and who have signed the\n16 \u201cAcknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound\u201d (Exhibit A);\n17 (d) the Court and its personnel;\n18 (e) court reporters and their staff;\n19 (f) professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors, and Professional\n20 Vendors to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action and who have\n21 signed the \u201cAcknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound\u201d (Exhibit A);\n22 (g) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a\n23 custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information;\n24 (h) during their depositions, witnesses, and, as to Non-Parties, attorneys for\n25 witnesses, in the Action to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary provided: (1) the\n26 deposing party requests that the witness sign the form attached as Exhibit A hereto;\n27 and (2) they will not be permitted to keep any confidential information unless they\n28 sign the \u201cAcknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound\u201d (Exhibit A), unless\n -10-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 11 of 19 Page ID\n #:1403\n\n\n\n 1 otherwise agreed by the Designating Party or ordered by the Court. Pages of\n 2 transcribed deposition testimony or exhibits to depositions that reveal Protected\n 3 Material may be separately bound by the court reporter and may not be disclosed to\n 4 anyone except as permitted under this Stipulated Protective Order; and\n 5 (i) any mediator or settlement officer, and their supporting personnel,\n 6 mutually agreed upon by all parties to the settlement discussions.\n 7 7.3 Disclosure of \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n 8 ONLY\u201d Information or Items. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court or permitted in\n 9 writing by the Designating Party, a Receiving Party may disclose any information or\n10 item designated \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d only\n11 to:\n12 (a) the Receiving Party\u2019s Outside Counsel of Record in this Action, as well\n13 as employees of said Outside Counsel of Record, and Professional Vendors engaged\n14 via said Outside Counsel of Record or via the Receiving Party, to whom it is\n15 reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this Action;\n16 (b) Experts (as defined in this Order) of the Receiving Party (i) to whom\n17 disclosure is reasonably necessary for this Action, (ii) who have signed the\n18 \u201cAcknowledgment and Agreement to Be Bound\u201d (Exhibit A), and (iii) as to whom\n19 the procedures set forth in Section 7.4, below, have been followed;\n20 (c) the Court and its personnel;\n21 (d) court reporters and their staff;\n22 (e) professional jury or trial consultants, mock jurors, to whom disclosure is\n23 reasonably necessary for this Action and who have signed the \u201cAcknowledgment and\n24 Agreement to Be Bound\u201d (Exhibit A);\n25 (f) the author or recipient of a document containing the information or a\n26 custodian or other person who otherwise possessed or knew the information; and\n27 (g) any mediator or settlement officer, and their supporting personnel,\n28 mutually agreed upon by all parties to the settlement discussions.\n -11-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 12 of 19 Page ID\n #:1404\n\n\n\n 1 7.4 Procedures for Approving or Objecting to Disclosure of \u201cHIGHLY\n 2 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d Information or Items to Experts.\n 3 (a) Unless otherwise ordered by the court or agreed to in writing by the\n 4 Designating Party, a Party that seeks to disclose to an Expert (as defined in this Order)\n 5 any information or item that has been designated \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n 6 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d pursuant to paragraph 7.3(b) first must make a written\n 7 request to the Designating Party that (1) identifies the general categories of \u201cHIGHLY\n 8 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d information that the Receiving\n 9 Party seeks permission to disclose to the Expert, (2) sets forth the full name of the\n10 Expert and the city and state of his or her primary residence, (3) attaches a copy of\n11 the Expert\u2019s current resume, (4) identifies the Expert\u2019s current employer(s), (5)\n12 identifies each person or entity from whom the Expert has received compensation or\n13 funding for work in his or her areas of expertise or to whom the expert has provided\n14 professional services, including in connection with a litigation, at any time during the\n15 preceding four years, and (6) identifies (by name and number of the case, filing date,\n16 and location of court) any litigation in connection with which the Expert has offered\n17 expert testimony, including through a declaration, report, or testimony at a deposition\n18 or trial, during the preceding five years.1\n19 (b) A Party that makes a request and provides the information specified in\n20 the preceding respective paragraphs may disclose the subject Protected Material to\n21 the identified Expert unless, within ten (10) calendar days of delivering the request,\n22 the Party receives a written objection from the Designating Party. Any such objection\n23 must set forth in detail the grounds on which it is based.\n24\n25 1\n If the Expert believes any of this information is subject to a confidentiality\n26 obligation to a third-party, then the Expert should provide whatever information the\n Expert believes can be disclosed without violating any confidentiality agreements,\n27 and the Party seeking to disclose to the Expert shall be available to meet and confer\n28 with the Designating Party regarding any such engagement.\n -12-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 13 of 19 Page ID\n #:1405\n\n\n\n 1 (c) A Party that receives a timely written objection must meet and confer\n 2 with the Designating Party (through direct voice to voice dialogue) to try to resolve\n 3 the matter by agreement within seven (7) calendar days of the written objection. If no\n 4 agreement is reached, the Party seeking to make the disclosure to the Expert may seek\n 5 the Court\u2019s relief.\n 6 (d) In any such proceeding, the Party opposing disclosure to the Expert shall\n 7 bear the burden of proving that the risk of harm that the disclosure would entail (under\n 8 the safeguards proposed) outweighs the Receiving Party\u2019s need to disclose the\n 9 Protected Material to its Expert.\n10 8. PROTECTED MATERIAL SUBPOENAED OR ORDERED\n11 PRODUCED IN OTHER LITIGATION\n12 If a Party is served with a subpoena or a court order issued in other litigation\n13 that compels disclosure of any information or items designated in this Action as\n14 \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n15 ONLY,\u201d that Party must:\n16 (a) promptly notify in writing the Designating Party. Such notification shall\n17 include a copy of the subpoena or court order;\n18 (b) promptly notify in writing the party who caused the subpoena or order\n19 to issue in the other litigation that some or all of the material covered by the subpoena\n20 or order is subject to this Order. Such notification shall include a copy of this Order;\n21 and\n22 (c) cooperate with respect to all reasonable procedures sought to be pursued\n23 by the Designating Party whose Protected Material may be affected.\n24 If the Designating Party timely seeks a protective order, the Party served with\n25 the subpoena or court order shall not produce any information designated in this action\n26 as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n27 ONLY,\u201d before a determination by the court from which the subpoena or order issued,\n28 unless the Party has obtained the Designating Party\u2019s permission. The Designating\n -13-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 14 of 19 Page ID\n #:1406\n\n\n\n 1 Party shall bear the burden and expense of seeking protection in that court of its\n 2 confidential material and nothing in these provisions should be construed as\n 3 authorizing or encouraging a Receiving Party in this Action to disobey a lawful\n 4 directive from another court.\n 5 9. A NON-PARTY\u2019S PROTECTED MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE\n 6 PRODUCED IN THIS LITIGATION\n 7 (a) The terms of this Order are applicable to information produced by a\n 8 Non-Party in this Action and designated as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cHIGHLY\n 9 CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY.\u201d Such information produced by\n10 Non-Parties in connection with this litigation is protected by the remedies and relief\n11 provided by this Order. Nothing in these provisions should be construed as\n12 prohibiting a Non-Party from seeking additional protections.\n13 (b) In the event that a Party is required, by a valid discovery request, to\n14 produce a Non-Party\u2019s confidential information in its possession, and the Party is\n15 subject to an agreement with the Non-Party not to produce the Non-Party\u2019s\n16 confidential information, then the Party shall:\n17 (1) promptly notify in writing the Requesting Party and the Non-Party\n18 that some or all of the information requested is subject to a confidentiality agreement\n19 with a Non-Party;\n20 (2) promptly provide the Non-Party with a copy of this Order, the\n21 relevant discovery request(s), and a reasonably specific description of the information\n22 requested; and\n23 (3) make the information requested available for inspection by the Non-\n24 Party, if requested.\n25 (c) If the Non-Party fails to seek a protective order from this Court within\n26 14 days of receiving the notice and accompanying information, the Receiving Party\n27 may produce the Non-Party\u2019s confidential information responsive to the discovery\n28 request. If the Non-Party timely seeks a protective order, the Receiving Party shall\n -14-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 15 of 19 Page ID\n #:1407\n\n\n\n 1 not produce any information in its possession or control that is subject to the\n 2 confidentiality agreement with the Non-Party before a determination by the Court.\n 3 Absent a court order to the contrary, the Non-Party shall bear the burden and expense\n 4 of seeking protection in this Court of its Protected Material.\n 5 10. UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF PROTECTED MATERIAL\n 6 (a) If a Receiving Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has\n 7 disclosed Protected Material to any person or in any circumstance not authorized\n 8 under this Order, the Receiving Party must immediately (i) notify in writing the\n 9 Designating Party of the unauthorized disclosures, (ii) use its best efforts to retrieve\n10 all unauthorized copies of the Protected Material, (iii) inform the person or persons to\n11 whom unauthorized disclosures were made of all the terms of this Order, and (iv)\n12 request such person or persons to execute the \u201cAcknowledgment and Agreement to\n13 Be Bound\u201d that is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n14 (b) To the extent that Protected Material is lost or is the subject of an actual\n15 or suspected security breach, the Receiving Party shall (i) provide written notice to\n16 the Designating Party of such loss or breach; (ii) investigate and make reasonable\n17 efforts to remediate the effects of the loss or breach, and provide the Designating Party\n18 with assurances reasonably satisfactory to Designating Party that such loss or breach\n19 will not reoccur; and (iii) provide sufficient information about the loss or breach that\n20 the Designating Party can reasonably ascertain the size and scope of the loss or breach.\n21 The Receiving Party agrees to cooperate, to the extent reasonably practicable, with\n22 the Designating Party in investigating any such security incident. In any event, the\n23 Receiving Party shall promptly take all necessary and appropriate corrective action to\n24 resolve the security breach.\n25 11. INADVERTENT PRODUCTION OF PRIVILEGED OR OTHERWISE\n26 PROTECTED MATERIAL\n27 When a Producing Party gives notice to Receiving Parties that certain\n28 inadvertently produced material is subject to a claim of privilege or other protection,\n -15-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 16 of 19 Page ID\n #:1408\n\n\n\n 1 the obligations of the Receiving Parties are those set forth in Federal Rule of Civil\n 2 Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). This provision is not intended to modify whatever procedure\n 3 may be established in an e-discovery order that provides for production without prior\n 4 privilege review. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) and (e), insofar as the\n 5 parties reach an agreement on the effect of disclosure of a communication or\n 6 information covered by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection, the\n 7 parties may incorporate their agreement in the stipulated protective order submitted\n 8 to the Court.\n 9 12. MISCELLANEOUS\n10 13.1 Right to Further Relief. Nothing in this Order abridges the right of any\n11 person to seek its modification by the Court in the future.\n12 13.2 Right to Assert Other Objections. By stipulating to the entry of this\n13 Protective Order, no Party waives any right it otherwise would have to object to\n14 disclosing or producing any information or item on any ground not addressed in this\n15 Stipulated Protective Order. Similarly, no Party waives any right to object on any\n16 ground to use in evidence of any of the material covered by this Protective Order.\n17 13.3 Filing Protected Material. A Party that seeks to file under seal any\n18 Protected Material must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Protected Material may\n19 only be filed under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of the specific\n20 Protected Material at issue; good cause must be shown in the request to file under\n21 seal. If a Party\u2019s request to file Protected Material under seal is denied by the Court,\n22 then the Receiving Party may file the information in the public record unless\n23 otherwise instructed by the Court.\n24 13. FINAL DISPOSITION\n25 After the final disposition of this Action, as defined within Section 4, within 60\n26 days of a written request by the Designating Party, each Receiving Party must, at the\n27 Receiving Party\u2019s election, return all Protected Material to the Producing Party or\n28 destroy such material. As used in this subdivision, \u201call Protected Material\u201d includes\n -16-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 17 of 19 Page ID\n #:1409\n\n\n\n 1 all copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries, and any other format reproducing or\n 2 capturing any of the Protected Material. Whether the Protected Material is returned\n 3 or destroyed, the Receiving Party must submit a written certification to the Producing\n 4 Party (and, if not the same person or entity, to the Designating Party) by the 60 day\n 5 deadline that (1) identifies (by category, where appropriate) all the Protected Material\n 6 that was returned or destroyed, and (2) affirms that the Receiving Party has not\n 7 retained any copies, abstracts, compilations, summaries or any other format\n 8 reproducing or capturing any of the Protected Material. Notwithstanding this\n 9 provision, counsel are entitled to retain an archival copy of all pleadings, motion\n10 papers, trial, deposition, and hearing transcripts, legal memoranda, correspondence,\n11 deposition and trial exhibits, expert reports, attorney work product, and consultant\n12 and expert work product, even if such materials contain Protected Material. Counsel\n13 are not required to search their email and disaster recovery systems to comply with\n14 this paragraph. Any retained archival or remaining copies that contain or constitute\n15 Protected Material remain subject to this Protective Order as set forth in Section 4\n16 (DURATION).\n17 14. VIOLATION OF ORDER\n18 Any violation of this Order may be punished by any and all appropriate\n19 measures including, without limitation, contempt proceedings and/or monetary\n20 sanctions.\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n -17-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 18 of 19 Page ID\n #:1410\n\n\n\n 1 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.\n 2\n 3 Dated: August 7, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n 4 JENNER & BLOCK LLP\n 5 David R. Singer\n Julie A. Shepard\n 6 Lauren M. Greene\n 7\n 8 By:\n 9 David R. Singer\n Attorney for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-\n10 Defendants\n11\n12 Dated: August 7, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n13 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART\n14 & SULLIVAN, LLP\n Robert M. Schwartz\n15 Daniel C. Posner\n16 Haiyan Tang\n Aaron Perahia\n17 Bradley Kahn\n18\n19 By:\n20 Robert M. Schwartz\n Attorneys for Defendants and\n21 Counterclaimant\n22\n23 FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED.\n24 DATED: __________________\n25\n26 By\n27 HON. CHARLES F. EICK\n United States Magistrate Judge\n28\n -18-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 63 Filed 08/07/26 Page 19 of 19 Page ID\n #:1411\n\n\n\n 1 EXHIBIT A\n 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND\n 3 I, ______________________ [full name], of __________________________\n 4 [full address], declare under penalty of perjury that I have read in its entirety and\n 5 understand the Stipulated Protective Order that was issued by the United States\n 6 District Court for the Central District of California on ____________ [date] in the\n 7 case of Disney Enterprises, Inc. et Al. v. MiniMax, et al., C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:25-cv-\n 8 08768-SB-E. I agree to comply with and to be bound by all the terms of this Stipulated\n 9 Protective Order and I understand and acknowledge that failure to so comply could\n10 expose me to sanctions and punishment in the nature of contempt. I solemnly promise\n11 that I will not disclose in any manner any information or item that is subject to this\n12 Stipulated Protective Order to any person or entity except in strict compliance with\n13 the provisions of this Order.\n14 I further agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court\n15 for the Central District of California for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this\n16 Stipulated Protective Order, even if such enforcement proceedings occur after\n17 termination of this action. I hereby appoint _______________________ [full name]\n18 of __________________________________ [full address and telephone number]\n19 as my California agent for service of process in connection with this action or any\n20 proceedings related to enforcement of this Stipulated Protective Order.\n21\n22 Date: ______________________________________\n23\n24 City and State where signed: _________________________________\n25\n26 Printed name: _______________________________\n27\n28 Signature: __________________________________\n -19-\n [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-07T14:57:44.160833-07:00","document_number":"63","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031048544409","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Protective Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-07T14:57:43.458517-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-01T15:14:30.631016-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-07","time_filed":"14:56:42","entry_number":63,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":363,"description":"Joint STIPULATION for Protective Order filed by Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants DC Comics, Disney Enterprises, Inc., Dreamworks Animation L.L.C., Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, MVL Film Finance LLC, Marvel Characters, Inc, The Cartoon Network, Inc., Turner Entertainment Co., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc..(Singer, David) (Entered: 08/07/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472591310/","id":472591310,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488030658/","id":488030658,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/62/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-07-29T16:29:45.246205-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T23:17:27.679903-07:00","sha1":"3544160805d4e615da6b5bcb0dc69d369b6ec9f7","page_count":2,"file_size":67142,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.62.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.62.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 62 Filed 07/29/26 Page 1 of 2 Page ID\n \uf0d2\uf0bf\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0bc\uf0bc\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0ad\uf0e6 #:1391\n \uf0cf\uf0cb\uf0d7\uf0d2\uf0d2\uf020\uf0db\uf0d3\uf0df\uf0d2\uf0cb\uf0db\uf0d4\uf020\uf0cb\uf0ce\uf0cf\uf0cb\uf0d8\uf0df\uf0ce\uf0cc\uf020\uf0fa\uf020\n \uf0cd\uf0cb\uf0d4\uf0d4\uf0d7\uf0ca\uf0df\uf0d2\uf0f4\uf020\uf0d4\uf0d4\uf0d0\uf020\n \uf0d8\uf0bf\uf0b7\uf0a7\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf020\uf0cc\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0f8\uf0de\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf020\uf0d2\uf0b1\uf0f2\uf020\uf0ee\uf0eb\uf0eb\uf0e7\uf0ed\uf0ef\uf0f7\uf020\n \uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0b7\uf0a7\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf0e0\uf0af\uf0ab\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0b3\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0ab\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0f2\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b3\uf020\n \uf0e8\uf0ea\uf0eb\uf020\uf0cd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf020\uf0da\uf0b7\uf0b9\uf0ab\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0bf\uf020\uf0cd\uf0ac\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf0f4\uf020\uf0ef\uf0f0\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf020\uf0da\uf0b4\uf0b1\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\n \uf0d4\uf0b1\uf0ad\uf020\uf0df\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0f4\uf020\uf0dd\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0b7\uf0bf\uf020\uf0e7\uf0f0\uf0f0\uf0ef\uf0e9\uf0f3\uf0ee\uf0eb\uf0ec\uf0ed\n\n\n\n \uf0cb\uf0d2\uf0d7\uf0cc\uf0db\uf0dc\uf020\uf0cd\uf0cc\uf0df\uf0cc\uf0db\uf0cd\uf020\uf0dc\uf0d7\uf0cd\uf0cc\uf0ce\uf0d7\uf0dd\uf0cc\uf020\uf0dd\uf0d1\uf0cb\uf0ce\uf0cc\uf020\n \uf0dd\uf0db\uf0d2\uf0cc\uf0ce\uf0df\uf0d4\uf020\uf0dc\uf0d7\uf0cd\uf0cc\uf0ce\uf0d7\uf0dd\uf0cc\uf020\uf0d1\uf0da\uf020\uf0dd\uf0df\uf0d4\uf0d7\uf0da\uf0d1\uf0ce\uf0d2\uf0d7\uf0df\n\uf0dc\uf0d7\uf0cd\uf0d2\uf0db\uf0c7\uf020\uf0db\uf0d2\uf0cc\uf0db\uf0ce\uf0d0\uf0ce\uf0d7\uf0cd\uf0db\uf0cd\uf0f4\uf020\uf0d7\uf0d2\uf0dd\uf0f2\uf0f4\uf020\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf0f2 \uf0dd\uf0df\uf0cd\uf0db\uf020\uf0d2\uf0cb\uf0d3\uf0de\uf0db\uf0ce\uf0e6\n\n \uf0ee\uf0e6\uf0ee\uf0eb\uf0f3\uf0bd\uf0aa\uf0f3\uf0f0\uf0e8\uf0e9\uf0ea\uf0e8\uf0f3\uf0cd\uf0de\uf0f3\uf0db\n \uf0d0\uf0d4\uf0df\uf0d7\uf0d2\uf0cc\uf0d7\uf0da\uf0da\uf0f8\uf0cd\uf0f7\n \uf0aa\uf0f2\n\n\uf0cd\uf0d8\uf0df\uf0d2\uf0d9\uf0d8\uf0df\uf0d7\uf020\uf0c8\uf0d7\uf0c7\uf0cb\uf020\uf0d6\uf0d7\uf0c6\uf0d8\uf0d7\uf020\uf0cc\uf0db\uf0dd\uf0d8\uf0d2\uf0d1\uf0d4\uf0d1\uf0d9\uf0c7\uf020\uf0dd\uf0d1\uf0f2\uf020\uf0d4\uf0cc\uf0dc\uf0f2\uf0f4\uf020\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf020\n\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf0f2 \uf0d2\uf0d1\uf0cc\uf0d7\uf0dd\uf0db\uf020\uf0d1\uf0da\uf020\uf0df\uf0d0\uf0d0\uf0db\uf0df\uf0ce\uf0df\uf0d2\uf0dd\uf0db\uf020\uf0d1\uf0ce\uf020\n \uf0c9\uf0d7\uf0cc\uf0d8\uf0dc\uf0ce\uf0df\uf0c9\uf0df\uf0d4\uf020\uf0d1\uf0da\uf020\uf0dd\uf0d1\uf0cb\uf0d2\uf0cd\uf0db\uf0d4\n \uf0dc\uf0db\uf0da\uf0db\uf0d2\uf0dc\uf0df\uf0d2\uf0cc\uf0f8\uf0cd\uf0f7\n\n \uf0d7\uf0d2\uf0cd\uf0cc\uf0ce\uf0cb\uf0dd\uf0cc\uf0d7\uf0d1\uf0d2\uf0cd\uf020\n\uf0df\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0e6\uf020\uf020\n\uf0df\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf0ad\uf020 \uf0b3\uf0bf\uf0a7\uf020 \uf0ab\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020 \uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020 \uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020 \uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020 \uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020 \uf0bf\uf0b2\uf020 \uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf020 \uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020 \uf0bf\uf020 \uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0f4\uf020 \uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020 \uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020 \uf0ab\uf0b0\uf0bc\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf020 \uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020 \uf0bc\uf0b1\uf0bd\uf0b5\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf020 \uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020 \uf0bf\uf020 \uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020 \uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020 \uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0ba\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf020 \uf0bf\uf020 \uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\n\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\uf0cc\uf0b1\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b1\uf020\uf0ad\uf0b1\uf0f4\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b3\uf0b0\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf020\uf0cd\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf020\uf0d7\uf0f4\uf020\uf0d7\uf0d7\uf0f4\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0d7\uf0ca\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf0f4\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\uf0f8\uf0cb\uf0ad\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf020\n\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf0f9\uf0ad\uf020\uf0dd\uf0d3\uf0f1\uf0db\uf0dd\uf0da\uf020\uf0b4\uf0b1\uf0b9\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b0\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0ad\uf0a9\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0b4\uf020\uf0bb\uf0a8\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0bc\uf0bc\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b1\uf0bd\uf0b5\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf020\n\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0bc\uf0f2\uf0f7\uf020\n\uf0c9\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bc\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0a9\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0e6\uf020\uf020\n\uf0cc\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020 \uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020 \uf0b3\uf0bf\uf0a7\uf020 \uf0be\uf0bb\uf020 \uf0ab\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020 \uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020 \uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf020 \uf0bf\uf0b2\uf020 \uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf0f9\uf0ad\uf020 \uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ab\uf0ad\uf020 \uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020 \uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf020 \uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020 \uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0bc\uf020 \uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020 \uf0bf\uf020 \uf0b0\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0a7\uf020 \uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020 \uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bb\uf020 \uf0ad\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0ab\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0e6\uf020 \uf020 \uf0f8\uf0ef\uf0f7\uf020 \uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\n\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0bc\uf0a7\uf020\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0bb\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0be\uf0a7\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0f4\uf020\uf0be\uf0ab\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b1\uf0bd\uf0b5\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b1\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b2\uf0b1\uf0ac\uf020\uf0a7\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0ba\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ba\uf0bf\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf0e5\uf020\uf0f8\uf0ee\uf0f7\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf020\n\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf0b3\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf0f9\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b9\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0a7\uf020\uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0b4\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0ab\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b0\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0a7\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bc\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b2\uf0b1\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\n\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0b4\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf0b3\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0de\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b0\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0a7\uf0e5\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0f8\uf0ed\uf0f7\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b0\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0b3\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ba\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0b3\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\n\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0f4\uf020\uf0be\uf0ab\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0b4\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf0b7\uf0aa\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0b2\uf0b1\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\uf0da\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ad\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0ab\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0f4\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b3\uf0b0\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf020\uf0cd\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf020\uf0d7\uf0f4\uf020\uf0d7\uf0d7\uf0d7\uf0f4\uf020\n\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0d7\uf0ca\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf0f4\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\uf020\n\uf0d2\uf0b1\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0e6\uf020 \uf020 \uf0d7\uf0b2\uf020 \uf0ad\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0ab\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf020 \uf0b2\uf0b1\uf0ac\uf020 \uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020 \uf0bf\uf0be\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf0f4\uf020 \uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf0ad\uf020 \uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0bb\uf0b5\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020 \uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020 \uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bc\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0a9\uf020 \uf0ba\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0b3\uf020 \uf0bf\uf020 \uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020 \uf0b3\uf0ab\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf020 \uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0ae\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf020 \uf0b1\uf0be\uf0ac\uf0bf\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020 \uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ad\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf020 \uf0ba\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0b3\uf020 \uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\n\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\uf0d7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ad\uf0ab\uf0bd\uf0b8\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b7\uf0ae\uf0bd\uf0ab\uf0b3\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0f4\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ad\uf0b8\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b4\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b3\uf0b0\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf020\uf0fe\uf0ce\uf0bb\uf0af\uf0ab\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0df\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0cd\uf0ab\uf0be\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0ab\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0c9\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bc\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0a9\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\n\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0fe\uf020\uf0f8\uf0da\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0d9\uf0f3\uf0f0\uf0ef\uf0f7\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0fe\uf0d2\uf0b1\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0df\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0c9\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bc\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0a9\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0fe\uf020\uf0f8\uf0da\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0d9\uf0f3\uf0ef\uf0ee\uf0ed\uf0f7\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\uf0cd\uf0bb\uf0bb\uf020\uf0da\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0d9\uf0f3\uf0f0\uf0ef\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\n\uf0ba\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0f2\n\uf0cd\uf0db\uf0dd\uf0cc\uf0d7\uf0d1\uf0d2\uf020\uf0d7\uf020\uf0f3\uf020\uf0d7\uf0dc\uf0db\uf0d2\uf0cc\uf0d7\uf0da\uf0c7\uf0d7\uf0d2\uf0d9\uf020\uf0d7\uf0d2\uf0da\uf0d1\uf0ce\uf0d3\uf0df\uf0cc\uf0d7\uf0d1\uf0d2\uf020\n\uf0d0\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b3\uf0b0\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0b4\uf0b4\uf0b1\uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0a7\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf020\uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0b8\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020\uf0bf\uf0bc\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b3\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0f8\uf0b7\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b3\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf0f4\uf020\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0b7\uf0bc\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\n\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf020\uf0bd\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0b4\uf0a7\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b1\uf0bd\uf0b5\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf0e5\uf020\uf0b7\uf0ba\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf020\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0bd\uf020\uf0aa\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf0f4\uf020\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020\uf0fe\uf0d0\uf0d8\uf0ca\uf0fe\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0fe\uf0dd\uf0df\uf020\uf0de\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf020\uf0d2\uf0ab\uf0b3\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0fe\uf0f7\uf0e6\n\n\uf0d2\uf0bf\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf0e6 \uf0d8\uf0bf\uf0b7\uf0a7\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf020\uf0cc\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0b9 \uf0dd\uf0df\uf020\uf0de\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf020\uf0d2\uf0ab\uf0b3\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0e6 \uf0ee\uf0eb\uf0eb\uf0e7\uf0ed\uf0ef\n\uf0da\uf0b7\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b9\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0a7\uf0e6 \uf0cf\uf0cb\uf0d7\uf0d2\uf0d2\uf020\uf0db\uf0d3\uf0df\uf0d2\uf0cb\uf0db\uf0d4\uf020\uf0cb\uf0ce\uf0cf\uf0cb\uf0d8\uf0df\uf0ce\uf0cc\uf020\uf0fa\uf020\uf0cd\uf0cb\uf0d4\uf0d4\uf0d7\uf0ca\uf0df\uf0d2\uf0f4\uf020\uf0d4\uf0d4\uf0d0\n\uf0df\uf0bc\uf0bc\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0ad\uf0e6 \uf0e8\uf0ea\uf0eb\uf020\uf0cd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf020\uf0da\uf0b7\uf0b9\uf0ab\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0bf\uf020\uf0cd\uf0ac\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf0f4\uf020\uf0ef\uf0f0\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf020\uf0da\uf0b4\uf0b1\uf0b1\uf0ae\n\n\uf0cc\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0b0\uf0b8\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf020\uf0d2\uf0ab\uf0b3\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0e6 \uf0f8\uf0ee\uf0ef\uf0ed\uf0f7\uf020\uf0ec\uf0ec\uf0ed\uf0f3\uf0ed\uf0f0\uf0f0\uf0f0 \uf0da\uf0bf\uf0a8\uf020\uf0d2\uf0ab\uf0b3\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0e6 \uf0f8\uf0ee\uf0ef\uf0ed\uf0f7\uf020\uf0ec\uf0ec\uf0ed\uf0f3\uf0ed\uf0ef\uf0f0\uf0f0\n\uf0db\uf0b3\uf0bf\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0e6 \uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0b7\uf0a7\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf0e0\uf0af\uf0ab\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0b3\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0ab\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0f2\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b3\n\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0b4\uf0b4\uf0b1\uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0b0\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b0\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0e6\n\uf0dc\uf0bb\uf0ba\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf020\uf0cd\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0b7\uf020\uf0c8\uf0b7\uf0a7\uf0ab\uf020\uf0d6\uf0b7\uf0a6\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf020\uf0cc\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0b8\uf0b2\uf0b1\uf0b4\uf0b1\uf0b9\uf0a7\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0f2\uf020\uf0d4\uf0ac\uf0bc\uf0f2\uf0f4\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0dc\uf0bb\uf0ba\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0bd\uf0b4\uf0bf\uf0b7\uf0b3\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf020\uf0d2\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0b1\uf0be\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf020\uf0d0\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0f2\uf020\uf0d4\uf0ac\uf0bc\uf0f2\n\n\n\n\uf0d9\uf0f3\uf0ef\uf0ee\uf0ed\uf020\uf0f8\uf0e7\uf0f1\uf0ef\uf0e9\uf0f7 \uf0d2\uf0d1\uf0cc\uf0d7\uf0dd\uf0db\uf020\uf0d1\uf0da\uf020\uf0df\uf0d0\uf0d0\uf0db\uf0df\uf0ce\uf0df\uf0d2\uf0dd\uf0db\uf020\uf0d1\uf0ce\uf020\uf0c9\uf0d7\uf0cc\uf0d8\uf0dc\uf0ce\uf0df\uf0c9\uf0df\uf0d4\uf020\uf0d1\uf0da\uf020\uf0dd\uf0d1\uf0cb\uf0d2\uf0cd\uf0db\uf0d4 \uf0d0\uf0bf\uf0b9\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ef\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ee\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 62 Filed 07/29/26 Page 2 of 2 Page ID\n #:1392\n\uf0cd\uf0db\uf0dd\uf0cc\uf0d7\uf0d1\uf0d2\uf020\uf0d7\uf0d7\uf020\uf0f3\uf020\uf0cc\uf0d1\uf020\uf0df\uf0dc\uf0dc\uf020\uf0df\uf0d2\uf020\uf0df\uf0cc\uf0cc\uf0d1\uf0ce\uf0d2\uf0db\uf0c7\uf020\uf0cc\uf0d1\uf020\uf0cc\uf0d8\uf0db\uf020\uf0dc\uf0d1\uf0dd\uf0d5\uf0db\uf0cc\uf020\n\uf0d0\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0b4\uf0b4\uf0b1\uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0b1\uf0b0\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0e6\n \uf0cc\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0be\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0bc\uf0a7\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ad\uf0b8\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b4\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf020\uf0bf\uf0bc\uf0bc\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\n \uf0bc\uf0b1\uf0bd\uf0b5\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\uf0cc\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bc\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf0f9\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0ae\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0e6\uf020 \uf020 \uf020 \uf020 \uf020\uf020\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\n \uf0cc\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0ab\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0ae\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0be\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\uf0d1\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf0b3\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\n \uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf0f9\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b9\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0aa\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ad\uf0b4\uf0a7\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0f2\n \uf0cc\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0ab\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0ae\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0be\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\uf0d2\uf0b1\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf0b3\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0ad\uf020\n \uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf0f9\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b9\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0aa\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ad\uf0b4\uf0a7\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0f2\n \uf0de\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0bc\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf020\uf0bc\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b2\uf0ab\uf0b3\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf020\uf0f8\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0bf\uf0bd\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\n \uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b0\uf0a7\uf0f7\uf0f4\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0be\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b3\uf0bf\uf0a7\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ac\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0b4\uf0a7\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0bf\uf0bc\uf0b3\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ad\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf020\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0bd\uf020\uf0aa\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf0f2\n \uf0cc\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0a9\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ac\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0ba\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0ae\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf020\uf0be\uf0a7\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0d6\uf0ab\uf0bc\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0b7\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf020\uf0d0\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf020\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf020\uf0d3\uf0ab\uf0b4\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0bc\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0ae\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf020\uf0d4\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b9\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf020\uf0f8\uf0fe\uf0d6\uf0d0\uf0d3\uf0d4\uf0fe\uf0f7\uf020\uf0b0\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf0ad\uf0ab\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020\uf0ee\uf0e8\uf020\n \uf0cb\uf0f2\uf0cd\uf0f2\uf0dd\uf0f2\uf020\uf079\uf020\uf0ef\uf0ec\uf0f0\uf0e9\uf020\uf0ba\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0b3\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf020\uf0dc\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0ae\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0f4\uf020\uf0a9\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf020\uf0a9\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0ad\uf0b7\uf0b9\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b2\uf0ab\uf0b3\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020\n \uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\uf0cc\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0be\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0ba\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0ae\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf0f4\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\n \uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0be\uf0a7\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ae\uf0ab\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0d6\uf0d0\uf0d3\uf0d4\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0ab\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0ae\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf020\uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ac\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0b4\uf0a7\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\n \uf0bf\uf0bc\uf0b3\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ad\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf020\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0bd\uf020\uf0aa\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0b1\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0b4\uf0b1\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0f2\n \uf0d1\uf0b2\uf020\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0c1\uf0f4\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0be\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0a9\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b9\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ad\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf020\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0bd\uf020\uf0aa\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf020\n \uf0be\uf0bb\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0de\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0b5\uf0ae\uf0ab\uf0b0\uf0ac\uf0bd\uf0a7\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0f4\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0d4\uf0f2\uf0de\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0b5\uf0ae\uf0f2\uf0ce\uf0f2\uf020\uf0e8\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ab\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b7\uf0a6\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0ab\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf020\n \uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0dc\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0ae\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0f2\n\uf0d7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0bf\uf0bc\uf0bc\uf0b7\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0f4\uf020\uf0b7\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bf\uf020\uf0bd\uf0ae\uf0b7\uf0b3\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0f4\uf020\uf0b0\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0b5\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0be\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf020\uf0be\uf0b1\uf0a8\uf020\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0b1\uf0a9\uf0f2\uf020\uf0cc\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0be\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0e6\n \uf0cb\uf0cd\uf0df\uf0d1 \uf0da\uf0d0\uf0dc\uf0d1 \uf0dd\uf0d6\uf0df\uf020\uf0df\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0b1\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0ac \uf0d0\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf020\uf0de\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0b1 \uf0ce\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf0bf\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0bc\n\n\n\uf0cd\uf0db\uf0dd\uf0cc\uf0d7\uf0d1\uf0d2\uf020\uf0d7\uf0d7\uf0d7\uf020\uf0f3\uf020\uf0cc\uf0d1\uf020\uf0ce\uf0db\uf0d3\uf0d1\uf0ca\uf0db\uf020\uf0df\uf0d2\uf020\uf0df\uf0cc\uf0cc\uf0d1\uf0ce\uf0d2\uf0db\uf0c7\uf020\uf0da\uf0ce\uf0d1\uf0d3\uf020\uf0cc\uf0d8\uf0db\uf020\uf0dc\uf0d1\uf0dd\uf0d5\uf0db\uf0cc\uf020\n\uf0d2\uf0b1\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0db\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf020\uf0da\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0b4\uf020\uf0be\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf0f2\uf020\uf0d0\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0b4\uf0b4\uf0b1\uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0b1\uf0b0\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0e6\n\n \uf0cc\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b2\uf0bf\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0be\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0bc\uf0a7\uf020\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0bb\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0be\uf0a7\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ad\uf0b8\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b4\uf0bc\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\n \uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b3\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ba\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0b3\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b1\uf0bd\uf0b5\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\uf0dc\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0bc\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0bb\uf0aa\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf0e6\uf020 \uf020 \uf020 \uf020 \uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf0f2\uf020\n\n \uf0d0\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b3\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b2\uf0bf\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0be\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ba\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0b3\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b1\uf0bd\uf0b5\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0e5\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf0b3\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b9\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0a7\uf020\n \uf0b2\uf0bf\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0be\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf0f4\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf0b3\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0de\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0f4\uf020\uf0a9\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0b4\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0ab\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\n \uf0b0\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b0\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\n \uf0f8\uf0d2\uf0b1\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0e6\uf020\uf020\uf0b7\uf0ba\uf020\uf0a7\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b3\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0a7\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ba\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0b3\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b1\uf0bd\uf0b5\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bf\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0ab\uf0b4\uf0ac\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b0\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0ba\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0b3\uf020\uf0bf\uf020\uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b9\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0a7\uf0f4\uf020\uf0a7\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf020\n \uf0ad\uf0b8\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0b4\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf0ab\uf0b4\uf0ac\uf020\uf0d4\uf0b1\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf020\uf0ce\uf0ab\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf020\uf0eb\uf0f3\uf0ec\uf0f2\uf0e8\uf0f2\uf0ef\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0e8\uf0ed\uf0f3\uf0ee\uf0f2\uf0ec\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0da\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf020\uf0d9\uf0f3\uf0f0\uf0ea\uf020\uf0f8\uf08d\uf0d2\uf0b1\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0df\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0de\uf0ab\uf0ad\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0bf\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf020\n \uf0d7\uf0b2\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf08c\uf0f7\uf0f4\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0a7\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf020\uf0b1\uf0be\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0b9\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ad\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf020\uf0b2\uf0b1\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0ba\uf0a7\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0b5\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b0\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf020\uf0a7\uf0b1\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf020\uf0be\uf0ab\uf0ad\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf020\uf0bd\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0bf\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf020\n \uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0ba\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b3\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0f2\uf0f7\n \uf0cc\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0b0\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b0\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0b3\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ba\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0b3\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0f4\uf020\uf0be\uf0ab\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0b4\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf0b7\uf0aa\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf020\uf0b2\uf0b1\uf0ac\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0bb\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bd\uf0ac\uf0ae\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf020\n \uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0b9\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\uf0dc\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b0\uf0bf\uf0ae\uf0ac\uf0a7\uf020\uf0a9\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0b3\uf0b7\uf0ad\uf0ad\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf0e6\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\n\n \uf0cc\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ac\uf0b1\uf0ae\uf0b2\uf0bb\uf0a7\uf020\uf0b2\uf0bf\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0be\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf020\uf0a9\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0b1\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0b1\uf0b2\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bf\uf0b0\uf0b0\uf0bb\uf0bf\uf0b4\uf020\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0be\uf0bb\uf0bb\uf0b2\uf020\uf0bf\uf0bc\uf0b6\uf0ab\uf0bc\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\uf0dc\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0b3\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf020\uf0a9\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\n \uf0ba\uf0b7\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf0e6\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf020\uf0f2\uf020\uf020\n\n\uf0cd\uf0db\uf0dd\uf0cc\uf0d7\uf0d1\uf0d2\uf020\uf0d7\uf0ca\uf020\uf020\uf0f3\uf020\uf0cd\uf0d7\uf0d9\uf0d2\uf0df\uf0cc\uf0cb\uf0ce\uf0db\uf020\uf020\n\uf020\uf020\n\uf0d7\uf020\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0af\uf0ab\uf0bb\uf0ad\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0dd\uf0b4\uf0bb\uf0ae\uf0b5\uf020\uf0ab\uf0b0\uf0bc\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ac\uf0b8\uf0bb\uf020\uf0bc\uf0b1\uf0bd\uf0b5\uf0bb\uf0ac\uf020\uf0bf\uf0ad\uf020\uf0b7\uf0b2\uf0bc\uf0b7\uf0bd\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0bc\uf020\uf0bf\uf0be\uf0b1\uf0aa\uf0bb\uf0f2\n\n\n \uf0dc\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0bb\uf0e6 July 29, 2026 \uf0cd\uf0b7\uf0b9\uf0b2\uf0bf\uf0ac\uf0ab\uf0ae\uf0bb\uf0e6 \uf0f1\uf0ad\uf0f1\uf020\uf0d8\uf0bf\uf0b7\uf0a7\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf020\uf0cc\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0b9\n\n \uf0d2\uf0bf\uf0b3\uf0bb\uf0e6 \uf0d8\uf0bf\uf0b7\uf0a7\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf020\uf0cc\uf0bf\uf0b2\uf0b9\n\n\uf0d9\uf0f3\uf0ef\uf0ee\uf0ed\uf020\uf0f8\uf0e7\uf0f1\uf0ef\uf0e9\uf0f7 \uf0d2\uf0d1\uf0cc\uf0d7\uf0dd\uf0db\uf020\uf0d1\uf0da\uf020\uf0df\uf0d0\uf0d0\uf0db\uf0df\uf0ce\uf0df\uf0d2\uf0dd\uf0db\uf020\uf0d1\uf0ce\uf020\uf0c9\uf0d7\uf0cc\uf0d8\uf0dc\uf0ce\uf0df\uf0c9\uf0df\uf0d4\uf020\uf0d1\uf0da\uf020\uf0dd\uf0d1\uf0cb\uf0d2\uf0cd\uf0db\uf0d4 \uf0d0\uf0bf\uf0b9\uf0bb\uf020\uf0ee\uf020\uf0b1\uf0ba\uf020\uf0ee\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-29T16:29:45.648055-07:00","document_number":"62","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031048456279","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-29T16:29:45.190700-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-30T06:03:18.147951-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-29","time_filed":"16:28:52","entry_number":62,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":358,"description":"Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Haiyan Tang counsel for Counter Claimant Nanonoble Pte. Ltd., Defendants Nanonoble Pte. Ltd., Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd.. Adding Haiyan Tang as counsel of record for Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd. and Nanonoble Pte. Ltd. for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendants Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd. and Nanonoble Pte. Ltd.. (Attorney Haiyan Tang added to party Nanonoble Pte. Ltd.(pty:cc), Attorney Haiyan Tang added to party Nanonoble Pte. Ltd.(pty:dft), Attorney Haiyan Tang added to party Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd.(pty:dft))(Tang, Haiyan) (Entered: 07/29/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/468975648/","id":468975648,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484290213/","id":484290213,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/61/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-06-26T17:58:52.716427-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:22.477511-07:00","sha1":"bd94ae2c5c4d52936a0033f2ce0e7ec37567919e","page_count":16,"file_size":281066,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.61.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.61.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/484290213.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 1 of 16 Page ID\n #:1375\n\n\n 1 JENNER & BLOCK LLP\n David R. Singer (SBN 204699)\n 2\n dsinger@jenner.com\n 3 Julie A. Shepard (SBN 175538)\n jshepard@jenner.com\n 4\n Lauren M. Greene (SBN 271397)\n 5 lgreene@jenner.com\n 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300\n 6\n Los Angeles, CA 90071-2246\n 7 Telephone:(213) 239-5100\n Facsimile: (213) 239-5199\n 8\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs and\n 9 Counterclaim-Defendants\n\n10\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n11\n CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n12\n\n13 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.; UNIVERSAL Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP;\n14 WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., et PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTER-\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 ANSWER TO\n15 al., DEFENDANT AND\n COUNTERCLAIMANT\n16 Plaintiffs, NANONOBLE PTE. LTD.\u2019S\n17 v. COUNTERCLAIMS\n\n18\n MINIMAX, et al.,\n Defendants. Complaint Filed: September 16, 2025\n19 Trial Date: July 12, 2027\n20 NANONOBLE PTE. LTD.,\n\n21 Counterclaimant,\n22\n v.\n23\n DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., UNIVERSAL\n24 CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS LLLP,\n\n25 WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC., et\n al.,\n26\n Counterclaim-Defendants.\n27\n\n28\n\n\n\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 2 of 16 Page ID\n #:1376\n\n\n 1 Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants Disney Enterprises, Inc., Marvel Characters, Inc.,\n 2 MVL Film Finance LLC, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, and Twentieth Century Fox Film\n 3 Corporation, (collectively, \u201cDisney\u201d), Universal City Studios Productions LLLP and\n 4 DreamWorks Animation L.L.C. (collectively \u201cUniversal\u201d), and Warner Bros.\n 5 Entertainment Inc., DC Comics, The Cartoon Network, Inc., Turner Entertainment Co.,\n 6 Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. (collectively \u201cWarner Bros. Discovery\u201d) (Disney,\n 7 Universal, and Warner Bros. Discovery are referred to collectively as \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d or\n 8 \u201cCounter-Defendants\u201d), by and through their attorneys at Jenner & Block LLP, hereby\n 9 answer the Counterclaims For Contractual Indemnification, Breach Of Contract, And\n10 Declaratory Relief; Demand For Jury Trial (\u201cCounterclaims\u201d) filed by Defendant and\n11 Counterclaimant Nanonoble Pte. Ltd.\u2019s (\u201cNanonoble\u201d or \u201cCounterclaimant\u201d)1 as follows:\n12 Except as otherwise expressly stated herein, Plaintiffs deny each and every\n13 allegation contained in the Counterclaims. Plaintiffs expressly reserve the right to amend\n14 or supplement their answer as may be necessary.\n15 NATURE OF THE COUNTERCLAIMS 2\n16 1. Plaintiffs admit that they investigated Defendants\u2019 copyright infringement,\n17 collected examples for purposes of filing this lawsuit, and included examples of such\n18 infringement in paragraphs 118 through 159 of their Complaint to enforce their rights under\n19 the U.S. Copyright Act. Plaintiffs further admit that Hailuo AI unlawfully generated the\n20 52 video outputs identified in paragraphs 118 through 159 of their Complaint (the\n21 \u201cAccused Outputs\u201d) and this lawsuit is now pending. Plaintiffs deny the remaining\n22 allegations of this paragraph.\n23 2. Plaintiffs admit that Hailuo AI service\u2019s unlawfully generated infringing\n24 outputs and that examples of Defendants\u2019 copyright infringement are included in the\n25 Complaint. Plaintiffs admit that Nanonoble\u2019s counterclaims purport to state claims for\n26 1\n Plaintiffs have brought claims against both Nanonoble and Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi\n27 Technology Ltd (collectively \u201cDefendants\u201d). Only Nanonoble has brought counterclaims.\n 2\n Plaintiffs neither admit nor deny the contents of the various headings and subheadings\n28 in Defendants\u2019 Counterclaims, which are reproduced solely for convenience.\n\n 2\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 3 of 16 Page ID\n #:1377\n\n\n 1 indemnification. Plaintiffs deny that they violated Nanonoble\u2019s Terms of Use and that the\n 2 Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the other allegations in this paragraph\n 3 state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the extent a response is required,\n 4 Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph.\n 5 3. Plaintiffs deny that they or their agents accepted and became bound by\n 6 Nanonoble\u2019s Terms of Use and further deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here.\n 7 Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth\n 8 of the remaining allegations of this paragraph and, on that basis, deny them.\n 9 4. To the extent this paragraph purports to quote selectively from Nanonoble\u2019s\n10 alleged Terms of Use attached as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs deny\n11 that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations of this\n12 paragraph.\n13 5. Plaintiffs admit that their agents investigated copyright infringement by and\n14 through the Hailuo AI platform and that Hailuo AI generated the infringing outputs\n15 included in paragraphs 118 through 159 of Plaintiffs\u2019 Complaint during that investigation.\n16 Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the allegations in\n17 this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the extent a\n18 response is required, Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in this paragraph.\n19 6. Plaintiffs allege that their claims arise out of Defendants\u2019 unlawful copyright\n20 infringement. Plaintiffs deny that the outputs were created by their agents and allege that\n21 the outputs were unlawfully generated by Defendants\u2019 Hailuo AI. Plaintiffs further deny\n22 that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the allegations in this paragraph\n23 state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the extent a response is required,\n24 Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in this paragraph.\n25 The Parties\n26 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Nanonoble is a Singaporean private\n27 limited company and that it purports to be the \u201cCompany\u201d as defined by the Terms of Use.\n28 Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth\n\n 3\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 4 of 16 Page ID\n #:1378\n\n\n 1 of the remaining allegations of this paragraph and, on that basis, deny them.\n 2 8. Plaintiffs admit that Disney Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation duly\n 3 incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in\n 4 Burbank, California.\n 5 9. Admitted.\n 6 10. Plaintiffs admit that Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. is a corporation duly\n 7 incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in\n 8 Burbank, California.\n 9 11. Plaintiffs admit that Marvel Characters, Inc. is a corporation duly incorporated\n10 under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Burbank,\n11 California.\n12 12. Admitted.\n13 13. Admitted.\n14 14. Plaintiffs admit that Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (also known as\n15 \u201c20th Century Studios\u201d) is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of\n16 Delaware with its principal place of business in Burbank, California.\n17 15. Admitted.\n18 16. Plaintiffs admit that The Cartoon Network, Inc. is a corporation duly\n19 incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in\n20 Atlanta, Georgia.\n21 17. Plaintiffs admit that Turner Entertainment Co. is a corporation duly organized\n22 under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Burbank,\n23 California.\n24 18. Plaintiffs admit that Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. is a corporation duly\n25 organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in\n26 Burbank, California.\n27 19. Admitted.\n28 20. Plaintiffs admit they are represented in this action by Jenner & Block LLP.\n\n 4\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 5 of 16 Page ID\n #:1379\n\n\n 1 To the extent the allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require\n 2 a response. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations\n 3 in this paragraph.\n 4 Jurisdiction and Venue\n 5 21. To the extent the allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do\n 6 not require a response. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny any remaining\n 7 allegations in this paragraph.\n 8 22. To the extent the allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do\n 9 not require a response. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny any remaining\n10 allegations in this paragraph.\n11 23. Solely for purposes of this action, Plaintiffs admit that they are subject to\n12 personal jurisdiction in this District in this lawsuit and that venue is proper in this District.\n13 To the extent the allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require\n14 a response. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations\n15 in this paragraph.\n16 24. Plaintiffs admit that this Court is a federal court in the United States, that they\n17 are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District in this lawsuit, and that venue is proper\n18 in this District. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent\n19 the allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To\n20 the extent this paragraph purports to quote selectively from Nanonoble\u2019s alleged Terms of\n21 Use attached as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs deny any remaining\n22 allegations in this paragraph.\n23 25. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n24 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n25 extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in this paragraph.\n26 Factual Allegations Common to Both Counterclaims\n27 26. Plaintiffs admit that Hailuo AI is an AI service owned and operated by\n28 Defendants that generates images and videos in the United States. Plaintiffs further admit\n\n 5\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 6 of 16 Page ID\n #:1380\n\n\n 1 that if Hailuo AI subscribers submit text prompts, Defendants\u2019 service generates, publicly\n 2 displays, publicly performs, and distributes images and videos including ones that infringe\n 3 Plaintiffs\u2019 copyrighted works. Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient\n 4 to form a belief about the truth of the other allegations of this paragraph and, on that basis,\n 5 deny them.\n 6 27. Plaintiffs deny that Hailuo AI is like video-editing software or a photocopier.\n 7 Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth\n 8 of the allegations of this paragraph and, on that basis, deny them.\n 9 28. To the extent the allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do\n10 not require a response. To the extent this paragraph purports to characterize Nanonoble\u2019s\n11 alleged Terms of Use attached as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs deny\n12 that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in\n13 this paragraph.\n14 29. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n15 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n16 extent this paragraph purports to characterize Nanonoble\u2019s alleged Terms of Use attached\n17 as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in\n18 this paragraph.\n19 30. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n20 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n21 extent this paragraph purports to characterize Nanonoble\u2019s alleged Terms of Use attached\n22 as Exhibit A or the screenshot attached as Exhibit B, the documents speak for themselves.\n23 Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in this paragraph.\n24 31. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n25 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n26 extent this paragraph purports to characterize Nanonoble\u2019s alleged Terms of Use attached\n27 as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in\n28\n\n\n 6\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 7 of 16 Page ID\n #:1381\n\n\n 1 this paragraph.\n 2 32. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n 3 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n 4 extent this paragraph purports to characterize Nanonoble\u2019s alleged Terms of Use attached\n 5 as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in\n 6 this paragraph.\n 7 33. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n 8 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n 9 extent this paragraph purports to characterize Nanonoble\u2019s alleged Terms of Use attached\n10 as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in\n11 this paragraph.\n12 34. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n13 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n14 extent this paragraph purports to characterize Nanonoble\u2019s alleged Terms of Use attached\n15 as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in\n16 this paragraph.\n17 35. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n18 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n19 extent this paragraph purports to characterize Nanonoble\u2019s alleged Terms of Use attached\n20 as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in\n21 this paragraph.\n22 36. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n23 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n24 extent this paragraph purports to characterize Nanonoble\u2019s alleged Terms of Use attached\n25 as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in\n26 this paragraph.\n27 37. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n28 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n\n 7\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 8 of 16 Page ID\n #:1382\n\n\n 1 extent this paragraph purports to characterize Nanonoble\u2019s alleged Terms of Use attached\n 2 as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in\n 3 this paragraph.\n 4 38. Denied.\n 5 39. Denied.\n 6 40. The Studios deny that the Accused Outputs were created by their agents and\n 7 allege that they were unlawfully generated by Defendants\u2019 Hailuo AI. Plaintiffs admit that\n 8 their Complaint depicts dozens of infringing image and video outputs created by\n 9 Defendants. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.\n10 41. Denied.\n11 42. Plaintiffs admit that in order to investigate Defendants\u2019 infringing activity,\n12 their agents investigated Defendants\u2019 Hailuo AI service through both free and paid\n13 accounts. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.\n14 43. Denied.\n15 44. The Studios deny that the Accused Outputs were created by their agents and\n16 allege that they were generated by Defendants. Plaintiffs admit that the outputs in\n17 paragraphs 118 through 159 of Plaintiffs\u2019 Complaint are part of Plaintiffs publicly filed\n18 Complaint. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.\n19 45. Denied.\n20 46. Plaintiffs admit they are represented in this action by Jenner & Block LLP.\n21 Plaintiffs admit that they investigated Defendants\u2019 copyright infringement. The Studios\n22 deny that the Accused Outputs were created by their agents and allege that they were\n23 generated by Defendants. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.\n24 47. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n25 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n26 extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in this paragraph.\n27 48. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. The Studios deny\n28 that the Accused Outputs were created by their agents and allege that they were generated\n\n 8\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 9 of 16 Page ID\n #:1383\n\n\n 1 by Defendants. To the extent the allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they\n 2 do not require a response. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny any\n 3 remaining allegations in this paragraph.\n 4 First Counterclaim for Relief\n 5 For Contractual Indemnification\n 6 (Against All Counterclaim Defendants)\n 7 49. This paragraph does not contain any allegations of fact and, therefore, no\n 8 answer is required. To the extent an answer is necessary, Plaintiffs incorporate by reference\n 9 their responses contained in paragraph 1 through 48 as if fully set forth at length herein.\n10 50. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n11 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n12 extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in this paragraph.\n13 51. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n14 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n15 extent this paragraph purports to characterize Nanonoble\u2019s alleged Terms of Use attached\n16 as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations of\n17 this paragraph.\n18 52. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n19 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n20 extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in this paragraph.\n21 53. Plaintiffs allege that their claims arise out of Defendants\u2019 unlawful copyright\n22 infringement. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n23 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response.\n24 Plaintiffs specifically deny Nanonoble is entitled to its defense costs, reasonable attorneys\u2019\n25 fees, or indemnity. Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in this paragraph.\n26 54. Plaintiffs deny that they are required to pay or reimburse Nanonoble\u2019s defense\n27 costs or attorneys\u2019 fees and that they are required to indemnify Nanonoble. Plaintiffs admit\n28 they have not paid or reimbursed Nanonoble for its defense costs or attorneys\u2019 fees, nor\n\n 9\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 10 of 16 Page ID\n #:1384\n\n\n 1 indemnified Nanonoble for its own copyright infringement. Plaintiffs deny the remaining\n 2 allegations in this paragraph.\n 3 55. Denied.\n 4 Second Counterclaim for Relief\n 5 For Breach of Contract\n 6 (Against All Counterclaim Defendants)\n 7 56. This paragraph does not contain any allegations of fact and, therefore, no\n 8 answer is required. To the extent an answer is necessary, Plaintiffs incorporate by reference\n 9 their responses contained in paragraph 1 through 55 as if fully set forth at length herein.\n10 57. Denied.\n11 58. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n12 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n13 extent this paragraph purports to quote selectively from Nanonoble\u2019s alleged Terms of Use\n14 attached as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs specifically deny they\n15 breached any alleged contract and deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph.\n16 59. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n17 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n18 extent this paragraph purports to quote selectively from Nanonoble\u2019s alleged Terms of Use\n19 attached as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs specifically deny they\n20 breached any alleged contract and deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph.\n21 60. Denied.\n22 61. Denied.\n23 62. Denied.\n24 Third Counterclaim for Relief\n25 For Declaratory Relief\n26 (Against All Counterclaim Defendants)\n27 63. This paragraph does not contain any allegations of fact and, therefore, no\n28 answer is required. To the extent an answer is necessary, Plaintiffs incorporate by reference\n\n 10\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 11 of 16 Page ID\n #:1385\n\n\n 1 their responses contained in paragraph1 through 62 as if fully set forth at length herein.\n 2 64. Denied.\n 3 65. Plaintiffs deny that the Terms of Use are enforceable here. To the extent the\n 4 allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions, they do not require a response. To the\n 5 extent the complaint purports to characterize Nanonoble\u2019s alleged Terms of Use attached\n 6 as Exhibit A, the document speaks for itself. Plaintiffs deny any remaining allegations in\n 7 this paragraph.\n 8 66. Denied.\n 9 67. Denied.\n10 NANONOBLE\u2019S PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n11 Plaintiffs deny that Nanonoble is entitled to any of the relief requested in\n12 Nanonoble\u2019s prayer for relief, or to any relief in any form from either the Court or Plaintiffs.\n13 Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against\n14 Nanonoble on all of Nanonoble\u2019s counterclaims, deny each of Nanonoble\u2019s prayers for\n15 relief, and award Plaintiffs their costs, attorneys\u2019 fees, and any other further relief deemed\n16 appropriate by the Court.\n17 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL\n18 Nanonoble\u2019s request for a jury trial includes no allegations and, therefore, requires\n19 no response. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all\n20 issues so triable.\n21 AFFIRMATIVE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES\n22 In response to Defendants\u2019 counterclaim, Plaintiffs incorporate each and every\n23 allegations set forth in their Complaint, filed September 16, 2025, ECF No. 1.\n24 Plaintiffs assert the following defenses. Plaintiffs do not concede that they bear the\n25 burden of proof as to any of the defenses asserted. Discovery recently began and, therefore,\n26 Plaintiffs have not yet collected and reviewed all the information and materials that may\n27 be relevant to the matters and issues herein. Accordingly, Plaintiffs reserve the right to\n28 amend, modify, or expand these defenses and to take further positions as discovery\n\n 11\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 12 of 16 Page ID\n #:1386\n\n\n 1 proceeds in this case.\n 2 First Defense\n 3 (Failure to State a Claim)\n 4 The counterclaims fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted.\n 5 Second Defense\n 6 (California Civil Code \u00a7 1668)\n 7 The counterclaims fail, in whole or in part, because the Terms of Use, as applied by\n 8 Nanonoble in its counterclaims, violate California Civil Code \u00a7 1668, which states that\n 9 \u201c[a]ll contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt any one from\n10 responsibility for its own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or\n11 violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law,\u201d because,\n12 among other reasons, Nanonoble seeks to exculpate itself from its own direct and indirect\n13 copyright infringement\u2014including willful infringement\u2014through its interpretation of its\n14 Terms of Use.\n15 Third Defense\n16 (Public Policy)\n17 The counterclaims fail, in whole or in part, because the Term so Use, as applied by\n18 Nanonoble in its counterclaims, violate public policy of California and the United States\n19 because, among other reasons, Nanonoble\u2019s interpretation of its Terms of Use is contrary\n20 to the public policies behind Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 for pre-lawsuit\n21 investigations and the Copyright Act\u2019s policy against copyright infringement and internet\n22 service providers interfering with standard technical measures to police infringement\n23 online.\n24 Fourth Defense\n25 (Waiver)\n26 The counterclaims fail, in whole or in part, because Nanonoble has waived any right\n27 to enforce the Terms of Use as interpreted, including but not limited to, through its actions\n28 directly infringing Plaintiffs\u2019 copyrighted works and through promoting and encouraging\n\n 12\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 13 of 16 Page ID\n #:1387\n\n\n 1 use of its Hailou AI service for infringing purposes.\n 2 Fifth Defense\n 3 (Formation)\n 4 The counterclaims fail, in whole or in part, because no proper legally binding\n 5 contract was formed between the parties.\n 6 Sixth Defense\n 7 (Estoppel)\n 8 The counterclaims fail, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel, as a result of,\n 9 among other things, Nanonoble\u2019s advertisements and promotions of its services, its Prompt\n10 Optimizer or other tools that refine and rewrite subscriber prompts, and its encouragement\n11 of its subscribers to engage in infringing activity using the Hailuo AI service.\n12 Seventh Defense\n13 (No Harm/Damages)\n14 The counterclaims fail, in whole or in part, because Nanonoble has suffered no harm\n15 or damages causally related to or the result of any alleged breach of contract.\n16 Eighth Defense\n17 (Unconscionability)\n18 The counterclaims fail, in whole or in part, because the Terms of Use, as applied by\n19 Nanonoble in its counterclaims, are procedurally and/or substantively unconscionable.\n20 Ninth Defense\n21 (Unclean Hands)\n22 Nanonoble brings its counterclaims with unclean hands with respect to Defendants\u2019\n23 Hailuo AI service because it seeks to use Hailuo AI\u2019s services\u2019 Terms of Use to exculpate\n24 Nanonoble\u2019s wrongdoing, including through an overly broad reading of the Terms of Use.\n25 Defendants operate Hailuo AI, a Chinese artificial intelligence image and video generating\n26 service that pirates and plunders Plaintiffs\u2019 copyright works on a massive scale.\n27 Defendants generate, and offer their subscribers, an endless supply of infringing images\n28 and videos featuring Plaintiffs\u2019 famous copyrighted characters. In order to investigate\n\n 13\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 14 of 16 Page ID\n #:1388\n\n\n 1 whether the Hailuo AI service infringes copyrights to seek to stop such infringement, it is\n 2 necessary to investigate the service. Nanonoble\u2019s position regarding its Terms of Use\n 3 would preclude a copyright holder from investigating infringement of its copyrights.\n 4 Because Defendants\u2019 inequitable conduct relates directly to Nanonoble\u2019s counterclaims in\n 5 its action and harms Plaintiffs, Nanonoble is not entitled to any equitable relief.\n 6 Tenth Defense\n 7 (No Breach)\n 8 The counterclaims fail, in whole or in part, because the alleged conduct of Plaintiffs\n 9 does not violate Nanonoble\u2019s Terms of Use and therefore there is no breach of any alleged\n10 agreement, due to, among other things, Plaintiffs\u2019 alleged conduct was not for commercial\n11 purposes, did not violate the intellectual property or other rights of third parties, did not\n12 expose Defendants to any third-party liability, and/or did not create any independent\n13 liability of Defendants.\n14 Eleventh Defense\n15 (No Third-Party Claim/Injury)\n16 The counterclaims fail, in whole or in part, because there are no third-party claims\n17 or injury such that any indemnification is necessary. Nanonoble only seeks\n18 indemnification for first party claims that are by law not covered by the alleged\n19 indemnification provisions.\n20 Twelfth Defense\n21 (Inapplicable Choice of Law Provision)\n22 To the extent that Nanonoble relies upon an alleged Singapore choice of law\n23 provision, such provision is unenforceable because the chosen jurisdiction has no\n24 substantial relationship to the parties or the transaction and there is no other reasonable\n25 basis for the parties choice and/or application of the law of the chosen jurisdiction would\n26 be contrary to a fundamental policy of a state which has a materially greater interest than\n27 the chosen state in the determination of the particular issue and which would be the state\n28\n\n\n 14\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 15 of 16 Page ID\n #:1389\n\n\n 1 of the applicable law in the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties.\n 2 Thirteenth Defense\n 3 (Lack of Standing)\n 4 The counterclaims fail, in whole or in part, because Nanonoble lacks standing to\n 5 bring such counterclaims.\n 6 Other Defenses\n 7 Plaintiffs reserve the right to assert any additional or affirmative defenses under Rule\n 8 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other defense, at law or equity, that\n 9 may now exist or that may become available through information developed in discovery,\n10 at trial, or otherwise.\n11 PLAINTIFFS\u2019 PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n12 WHEREFORE, in addition to the relief sought in their Complaint (ECF No. 1),\n13 Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows in regard to Nanonoble\u2019s\n14 counterclaims:\n15 1. That Nanonoble takes nothing and that judgment be entered in favor of\n16 Plaintiffs and against Nanonoble;\n17 2. Awarding Plaintiffs their attorneys\u2019 fees and costs incurred in responding to\n18 Nanonoble\u2019s meritless allegations of breach of contract and indemnity;\n19 3. Awarding Plaintiffs such further relief as the Court deems fair and proper.\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n\n 15\n ANSWER\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 61 Filed 06/26/26 Page 16 of 16 Page ID\n #:1390\n\n\n 1 Dated: June 26, 2026 JENNER & BLOCK LLP\n 2\n\n 3\n By: /s/ David Singer\n 4 David Singer\n Julie A. Shepard\n 5 Lauren M. Greene\n 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-\n Defendants\n 7\n\n 8\n\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n\n 16\n ANSWER\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-26T17:58:53.372139-07:00","document_number":"61","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031048153491","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Answer to Counterclaim","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-26T17:58:52.675004-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:22.377184-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-26","time_filed":"17:57:27","entry_number":61,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":352,"description":"ANSWER to Answer to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,, Counterclaim,, 60 with JURY DEMAND filed by Plaintiffs DC Comics, Disney Enterprises, Inc., Dreamworks Animation L.L.C., Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, MVL Film Finance LLC, Marvel Characters, Inc, The Cartoon Network, Inc., Turner Entertainment Co., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc..(Singer, David) (Entered: 06/26/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/466546018/","id":466546018,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481787100/","id":481787100,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/60/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-06-05T22:25:54.667964-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:22.335957-07:00","sha1":"f6af8cfd05d31511f2bd6f3dc2c05bd9152924c5","page_count":60,"file_size":751830,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.60.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.60.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/481787100.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-06-05T22:25:55.104366-07:00","document_number":"60","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047980831","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Answer to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) AND Counterclaim","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481787101/","id":481787101,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/60/1/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-06-05T22:25:56.051264-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-08T04:15:53.489692-07:00","sha1":"689cb1a6f33cb7c9d3f1fca951f733b4a1edc924","page_count":12,"file_size":183778,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.60.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.60.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/481787101.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-06-05T22:25:57.947457-07:00","document_number":"60","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"031047980832","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481787102/","id":481787102,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/60/2/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-06-05T22:25:56.062589-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-08T04:15:49.754234-07:00","sha1":"e723dd2471291b0c39ede83648d7791db9d3d9ed","page_count":2,"file_size":479081,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.60.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.60.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/481787102.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-06-05T22:25:59.972379-07:00","document_number":"60","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"031047980833","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-05T22:25:54.632694-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:22.298301-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-05","time_filed":"22:25:08","entry_number":60,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":263,"description":"ANSWER to Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening),,,,, 1 with JURY DEMAND filed by Defendants Nanonoble Pte. Ltd. and Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd.; Counterclaimant Nanonoble Pte. Ltd.'s, COUNTERCLAIM against DC Comics, Disney Enterprises, Inc., Dreamworks Animation L.L.C., Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, MVL Film Finance LLC, Marvel Characters, Inc, The Cartoon Network, Inc., Turner Entertainment Co., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. filed by Defendants Nanonoble Pte. Ltd., Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Schwartz, Robert) (Entered: 06/05/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465043271/","id":465043271,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480235857/","id":480235857,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/58/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-05-22T18:04:50.636601-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:22.185314-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"58","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047861699","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-22T18:04:50.610047-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:22.143445-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-22","time_filed":"17:41:01","entry_number":58,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-22.002","pacer_sequence_number":235,"description":"Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Andrew Jackson Thomas counsel for Plaintiffs DC Comics, Disney Enterprises, Inc., Dreamworks Animation L.L.C., Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, MVL Film Finance LLC, Marvel Characters, Inc, The Cartoon Network, Inc., Turner Entertainment Co., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.. Adding Andrew J. Thomas as counsel of record for Disney Enterprises, Inc.; Universal City Studios Productions LLLP; Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.; Marvel Characters, Inc.; MVL Film Finance LLC; Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; DC Comics; The Cartoon Network, Inc.; Turner Entertainment Co.; Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc.; DreamWorks Animation L.L.C. for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc.; Universal City Studios Productions LLLP; Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.; Marvel Characters, Inc.; MVL Film Finance LLC; Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; DC Comics; The Cartoon Network, Inc.; Turner Entertainment Co.; Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc.; DreamWorks Animation L.L.C.. (Attorney Andrew Jackson Thomas added to party DC Comics(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Jackson Thomas added to party Disney Enterprises, Inc.(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Jackson Thomas added to party Dreamworks Animation L.L.C.(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Jackson Thomas added to party Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc.(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Jackson Thomas added to party Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Jackson Thomas added to party MVL Film Finance LLC(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Jackson Thomas added to party Marvel Characters, Inc(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Jackson Thomas added to party The Cartoon Network, Inc.(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Jackson Thomas added to party Turner Entertainment Co.(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Jackson Thomas added to party Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Jackson Thomas added to party Universal City Studios Productions LLLP(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Jackson Thomas added to party Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (pty:pla))(Thomas, Andrew) (Entered: 05/22/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465043248/","id":465043248,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480235834/","id":480235834,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/59/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-05-22T18:04:47.383872-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:22.267206-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"59","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047861777","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel (G-123)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-22T18:04:47.357991-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:22.236114-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-22","time_filed":"17:47:15","entry_number":59,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-22.003","pacer_sequence_number":249,"description":"Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Andrew Gregory Sullivan counsel for Plaintiffs DC Comics, Disney Enterprises, Inc., Dreamworks Animation L.L.C., Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, MVL Film Finance LLC, Marvel Characters, Inc, The Cartoon Network, Inc., Turner Entertainment Co., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.. Adding Andrew G. Sullivan as counsel of record for Disney Enterprises, Inc.; Universal City Studios Productions LLLP; Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.; Marvel Characters, Inc.; MVL Film Finance LLC; Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; DC Comics; The Cartoon Network, Inc.; Turner Entertainment Co.; Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc.; DreamWorks Animation L.L.C. for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc.; Universal City Studios Productions LLLP; Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.; Marvel Characters, Inc.; MVL Film Finance LLC; Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; DC Comics; The Cartoon Network, Inc.; Turner Entertainment Co.; Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc.; DreamWorks Animation L.L.C.. (Attorney Andrew Gregory Sullivan added to party DC Comics(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Gregory Sullivan added to party Disney Enterprises, Inc.(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Gregory Sullivan added to party Dreamworks Animation L.L.C.(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Gregory Sullivan added to party Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc.(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Gregory Sullivan added to party Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Gregory Sullivan added to party MVL Film Finance LLC(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Gregory Sullivan added to party Marvel Characters, Inc(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Gregory Sullivan added to party The Cartoon Network, Inc.(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Gregory Sullivan added to party Turner Entertainment Co.(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Gregory Sullivan added to party Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Gregory Sullivan added to party Universal City Studios Productions LLLP(pty:pla), Attorney Andrew Gregory Sullivan added to party Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (pty:pla))(Sullivan, Andrew) (Entered: 05/22/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465025978/","id":465025978,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480218055/","id":480218055,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/57/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-05-22T14:33:15.759290-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:22.091069-07:00","sha1":"ecaaf5e4e2927f6dc09cb2502d7235f2223ccd01","page_count":12,"file_size":242120,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.57.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.57.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/480218055.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 57 Filed 05/22/26 Page 1 of 12 Page ID\n #:1285\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n\n\n\n DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n Plaintiffs,\n\n v. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO\n DISMISS [DKT. NOS. 34, 35]\n MINIMAX et al.,\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n\n Plaintiffs are a collection of major movie studios that have developed many\nof the most widely known movies and characters. Defendants operate Hailuo AI,\nan artificial intelligence (AI) image and video generating service. When prompted\nwith the name of one of Plaintiffs\u2019 famous characters, Hailuo AI generates a video\nor image with a near-perfect likeness of the character in the context requested by\nthe prompt. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have infringed their copyrights both\nby training the AI using Plaintiffs\u2019 copyrighted works and by encouraging\ncustomers to use the AI to produce infringing content. Defendants move to\ndismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and Defendant Shanghai Xiyu\nJizhi Technology Co. Ltd. (SXJT) moves to dismiss for lack of personal\njurisdiction. The Court finds this matter suitable for decision without oral\nargument and vacates the May 29 motion hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. 1\nThe motions are denied.\n\n I.\n\n Plaintiffs comprise three groups of companies\u2014Disney, Universal, and\nWarner Bros. 2\u2014that \u201care the largest movie studios in the world.\u201d Dkt. No. 1 \u00b6 2\n\n1\n Defendants\u2019 application to divide argument among multiple attorneys (Dkt. No.\n56) is therefore denied as moot.\n2\n Plaintiffs Disney Enterprises, Inc., Marvel Characters, Inc., MVL Film Finance\nLLC, Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation are\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 57 Filed 05/22/26 Page 2 of 12 Page ID\n #:1286\n\n\n\n(compl.). They allege that many of their most successful movies \u201care exceptional\n\u2013 and valuable \u2013 because of the larger-than-life characters featured in those\nworks,\u201d whose mere presence \u201ctells a story that was created and developed over\nmany years by teams of dedicated artists and storytellers.\u201d Id. \u201cMany of\nPlaintiffs\u2019 memorable characters have become pillars of pop culture with a lasting\nimpact on generations of audiences and consumers.\u201d Id. \u00b6 39. The complaint\nidentifies numerous examples, including characters from Star Wars (e.g., Darth\nVader and Yoda), the Marvel Cinematic Universe (e.g., Iron Man, the Hulk, and\nSpider-Man), The Simpsons (e.g., Homer and Marge), Pixar\u2019s animated movies\n(e.g., Buzz Lightyear), classic Disney animated movies (e.g., Princess Elsa, Olaf,\nAriel, and Aladdin), the DC Comics universe (e.g., Superman, Batman, and the\nJoker), and countless other animated television shows and movies (e.g., Bugs\nBunny, Tom and Jerry, Scooby Doo, the Powerpuff Girls, the Minions, and Shrek).\nId. \u00b6\u00b6 40\u2013109. The complaint includes exhibits documenting hundreds of\ncopyright registrations for works involving these characters. Dkt. No. 1-1\n(Disney); Dkt. No. 1-2 (Warner Bros.); Dkt. No. 1-3 (Universal).\n\n The complaint names three defendants: (1) MiniMax, (2) SXJT, \u201cof which\nMiniMax is a division or subsidiary, along with their affiliate and/or agent,\u201d and\n(3) Nanonoble Pte. Ltd., \u201cwhich operates at the direction and under the control of\nMiniMax.\u201d Dkt. No. 1 at 1. The complaint defines all three defendants\ncollectively as MiniMax and makes most of its allegations against MiniMax\u2014\napparently referring to all defendants collectively rather than to the first defendant.\nId. After Defendants clarified that MiniMax is not a distinct entity but rather a\nname under which SXJT does business, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their\nclaims against Defendant MiniMax without prejudice. Dkt. No. 49.\n\n As for the other two defendants, SXJT is a Chinese company headquartered\nin Shanghai, and Nanonoble is a Singaporean company headquartered in\nSingapore. Dkt. No. 1 \u00b6\u00b6 33\u201334. Defendants produce evidence\u2014which the Court\nconsiders only in connection with SXJT\u2019s personal-jurisdiction challenge\u2014that\nSXJT and Nanonoble are sister entities within the MiniMax Group, with SXJT\n\n\n\ncollectively referred to as Disney. Plaintiffs Universal City Studios Productions\nLLLP and DreamWorks Animation L.L.C. are collectively referred to as\nUniversal. Plaintiffs Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., DC Comics, The Cartoon\nNetwork, Inc., Turner Entertainment Co., and Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. are\ncollectively referred to as Warner Bros.\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 57 Filed 05/22/26 Page 3 of 12 Page ID\n #:1287\n\n\n\nfocusing on research and development in China while Nanonoble operates the\nHailuo AI platform in markets outside China. Dkt. No. 34-2 \u00b6\u00b6 4\u20136.\n\n MiniMax (used collectively in the complaint to refer to Defendants) was\nfounded in 2021 and is valued at $4 billion. Dkt. No. 1 \u00b6 110. Its Hailuo AI is a\ncommercial service. Id. \u00b6 111. Customers access Hailuo AI by signing up for a\nsubscription on MiniMax\u2019s website. Id. MiniMax offers five levels of paid\nsubscriptions ranging from $9.99 per month to $199.99 per month, with discounts\nfor quarterly or annual subscriptions. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 111\u201312. Users can also sign up for a\nfree account but need to sign up for a paid subscription once their initial free\ncredits expire (after three days) or are used up. Id. \u00b6 113. Users spend credits to\ngenerate images or short videos based on the user\u2019s written prompt. Id. Their\nvideos are publicly displayed on the \u201cExplore\u201d page on MiniMax\u2019s website. Id.\n\u00b6 115.\n\n MiniMax markets Hailuo AI as a \u201cHollywood studio in your pocket.\u201d Id.\n\u00b6 1. MiniMax advertises its ability to create AI-generated videos that use\nPlaintiffs\u2019 characters. Id. \u00b6 169. For example, MiniMax\u2019s official YouTube\nchannel promotes a video titled \u201cHailuo AI | Superheroes will heal your soul\u201d\nfeaturing AI-generated images of many of Plaintiffs\u2019 superhero characters\nincluding Deadpool, Batman, the Joker, Iron Man, Wonder Woman, Thanos,\nSuperman, Groot, Black Panther, Spider-Man, Flash, and Wolverine (as reflected\nin screenshots reproduced in the complaint). Id. MiniMax also conducts \u201cpaid\npartnerships\u201d with Instagram users who advertise Hailuo AI\u2019s abilities with AI-\ngenerated images of Plaintiffs\u2019 characters. Id. \u00b6 170. For example, one video\nadvertises that subscribers can \u201copen Hailuo AI\u201d and then \u201cjust type what you\nwant\u201d and shows a video of the video generator with \u201cSpider-man and Supergirl\nkissing in the park\u201d typed into the prompt, followed by the resulting video with the\ntwo characters (Disney\u2019s Spiderman and Warner Bros.\u2019s Supergirl) kissing. Id.\n\u00b6\u00b6 171\u201372. MiniMax has also advertised Hailuo AI through its official accounts\non WeChat, TikTok, and Instagram using images of Plaintiffs\u2019 characters including\nBuzz Lightyear, Olaf, Spiderman, the Hulk, the Joker, Batman, Superman, the\nMinions, Shrek, and others. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 174\u201385.\n\n When prompted with the names of Plaintiffs\u2019 characters, Hailuo AI\ngenerates extremely close reproductions of the characters. As just one of dozens of\nexamples in the complaint, when prompted with \u201cR2-D2 and C-3PO walking near\na spaceship, movie scene,\u201d Hailuo AI produced this image:\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 57 Filed 05/22/26 Page 4 of 12 Page ID\n #:1288\n\n\n\n\nId. \u00b6 121. For reference, these are Disney\u2019s R2-D2 and C-3PO characters in a\nscene from the Star Wars movies:\n\n\n\n\nId. Plaintiffs allege that \u201cthe outputs created by MiniMax are substantially similar\nreproductions and derivative works of [Plaintiffs\u2019] valuable copyrighted\ncharacters,\u201d often containing \u201cextensive nuance and detail, background elements,\ncostumes, and accessories beyond what was specified in the prompt.\u201d Id. \u00b6 160.\nThe complaint alleges that Hailuo AI\u2019s ability to reproduce such close copies of\nPlaintiffs\u2019 works demonstrates that MiniMax used Plaintiffs\u2019 copyrighted works\nwithout permission to train Hailuo AI by, among other things, downloading\nPlaintiffs\u2019 copyrighted content from the internet and other sources and reformatting\nthe content, which necessarily included creating more copies. Id. \u00b6 162.\n\n 4\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 57 Filed 05/22/26 Page 5 of 12 Page ID\n #:1289\n\n\n\n On August 27, 2025, Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel sent MiniMax a letter documenting\nits extensive infringement of Plaintiffs\u2019 copyrighted works and demanding that it\ncease. Id. \u00b6 208. MiniMax did not substantively respond or stop infringing, even\nthough it has the ability to purge its content or restrict the scope of what users are\nable to create (as it does when it rejects prompts seeking to create videos with\nviolence or nudity). Id. \u00b6\u00b6 204\u201307, 209. Plaintiffs then filed this action, alleging\nclaims for direct and secondary copyright infringement. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants\nmove to dismiss. Dkt. Nos. 34, 35.\n\n II.\n\n SXJT and MiniMax moved to dismiss the claims against them for lack of\npersonal jurisdiction, arguing that MiniMax is not a legal entity and that SXJT\nlacks minimum contacts with the United States. Dkt. No. 34. Plaintiffs later\nvoluntarily dismissed MiniMax, leaving only SXJT\u2019s challenge.\n\n A.\n\n A plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. Ranza v.\nNike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2015). \u201cWhere, as here, the defendant\u2019s\nmotion [to dismiss] is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary\nhearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts\nto withstand the motion to dismiss.\u201d Id. (cleaned up). A plaintiff cannot simply\nrest on the bare allegations of its complaint, but uncontroverted allegations in the\ncomplaint must be taken as true, and conflicts in the parties\u2019 evidence must be\nresolved in the plaintiff\u2019s favor. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374\nF.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004).\n\n B.\n\n Plaintiffs invoke personal jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2), which provides\nthat \u201c[f]or a claim that arises under federal law, serving a summons or filing a\nwaiver of service establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant if: (A) the\ndefendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state\u2019s courts of general jurisdiction;\nand (B) exercising jurisdiction is consistent with the United States Constitution and\nlaws.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). Under that rule, personal jurisdiction is proper\n\u201cwhen (1) the action arises under federal law, (2) the defendant is not subject to\njurisdiction in any state\u2019s courts of general jurisdiction, and (3) the court\u2019s exercise\nof jurisdiction comports with due process.\u201d Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd., 11\nF.4th 972, 978 (9th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). Here, the parties do not dispute the\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 57 Filed 05/22/26 Page 6 of 12 Page ID\n #:1290\n\n\n\nfirst two elements; SXJT argues only that the exercise of jurisdiction would not\ncomport with due process because SXJT lacks the requisite minimum contacts.\n\n \u201cFor the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant, due process\nrequires that the defendant have certain minimum contacts with the forum state\nsuch that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play\nand substantial justice.\u201d Ranza, 793 F.3d at 1068 (cleaned up). The due process\nanalysis under Rule 4(k)(2) \u201cis nearly identical to traditional personal jurisdiction\nanalysis,\u201d except that \u201crather than considering contacts between [the defendant]\nand the forum state, we consider contacts with the nation as a whole.\u201d Ayla, 11\nF.4th at 979 (quoting Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d 450,\n462 (9th Cir. 2007)). A defendant\u2019s minimum contacts may give rise to general or\nspecific jurisdiction. Here, Plaintiffs assert only specific jurisdiction.\n\n A nonresident defendant has sufficient minimum contacts to warrant the\nexercise of specific personal jurisdiction only when three requirements are met:\n(1) the defendant must either purposefully direct its activities toward the forum or\npurposefully avail itself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum;\n(2) the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant\u2019s forum-related activities;\nand (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial\njustice (i.e., it must be reasonable). Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int\u2019l, Inc., 874\nF.3d 1064, 1068 (9th Cir. 2017). The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the\nfirst two prongs, after which the burden shifts to the defendant to \u201cpresent a\ncompelling case\u201d that exercising jurisdiction would not be reasonable. Id. at\n1068\u201369.\n\n 1.\n\n SXJT argues that the complaint fails to allege the first prong\u2014that SXJT\ndirected its activities toward the United States. As SXJT correctly notes, the\ncomplaint repeatedly refers to conduct by \u201cMiniMax,\u201d without differentiating\namong the three Defendants. The Court concludes, however, that the Plaintiffs\nhave made a prima facie showing of purposeful direction by SXJT.\n\n In August 2024, SXJT filed a U.S. trademark application with the U.S.\nPatent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to use the MINIMAX mark in connection\nwith computer software for providing AI services. Dkt. No. 1-5 at 2 of 18. In\nFebruary 2026, SXJT filed a statement of use with the USPTO for the MINIMAX\nmark. Dkt. No. 43-2 at 7 of 57; 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1051(d)(1) (requiring applicant to file\n\u201ca verified statement that the mark is in use in commerce and specifying the date of\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 57 Filed 05/22/26 Page 7 of 12 Page ID\n #:1291\n\n\n\nthe applicant\u2019s first use of the mark in commerce and those goods or services\nspecified in the notice of allowance on or in connection with which the mark is\nused in commerce,\u201d together with specimens). That statement, made under penalty\nof perjury, verified that the mark was in use in connection with online software that\nemploys AI for content creation, processing, and editing of text, speech, audio, and\nvisual content. Dkt. No. 43-2 at 10\u201311 of 57. 3 It attached as a specimen\n\u201c[s]creenshots of the client\u2019s website showing the mark in association with the\ncovered services.\u201d Id. at 8 of 57. The screenshots included the \u201cAbout MiniMax\u201d\npage from MiniMax\u2019s website, which described \u201c[o]ur proprietary multimodal\nmodels\u201d and \u201cour major AI-native projects,\u201d including Hailuo AI. Id. at 4 of 57.\n\n SXJT\u2019s statement of use with the USPTO verifying that it was using the\nMINIMAX mark in commerce, including through Hailuo AI, is prima facie\nevidence that SXJT was operating the Hailuo AI app in the United States. Arguing\notherwise, SXJT produces declaration testimony that it has no presence in the\nUnited States and conducts all business operations in China; that it \u201cdoes not sell,\nlicense, distribute, market, advertise, or offer any products or services to\nconsumers or businesses in the U.S.\u201d; and that Nanonoble, rather than SXJT,\noperates the Hailuo AI platform in the United States. Dkt. No. 34-2 \u00b6\u00b6 5\u20139. If\nthose assertions are true, Plaintiffs may be unable to demonstrate personal\njurisdiction over SXJT. But at the pleading stage, conflicts of evidence must be\nresolved in Plaintiffs\u2019 favor. Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 800. On this record,\nSXJT has not shown that Plaintiffs\u2019 evidence\u2014particularly, SXJT\u2019s own sworn\nstatements about its use of the MINIMAX mark in commerce in connection with\nHailuo AI\u2014is insufficient to raise a fact issue at the pleading stage. 4\n\n The parties dispute whether filing a trademark application alone is sufficient\nto constitute purposeful direction. The Court need not resolve the dispute,\nhowever, because its conclusion that Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing of\npurposeful direction is not based principally on SXJT\u2019s filing of the trademark\n\n3\n Plaintiffs\u2019 unopposed request for the Court to take judicial notice of the USPTO\nfilings is granted. Dkt. No. 44. The request for judicial notice as to other\ndocuments, on which the Court does not rely, is denied as moot.\n4\n SXJT argues in reply that a statement of use may be based on use by a related\ncompany. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1055. It is not clear, however, that SXJT\u2019s statement of use\ndescribing the MiniMax website as \u201cthe client\u2019s website\u201d and discussing the\nmark\u2019s use in commerce in connection with Hailuo AI referred only to use by other\nrelated entities.\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 57 Filed 05/22/26 Page 8 of 12 Page ID\n #:1292\n\n\n\napplication itself, but rather on SXJT\u2019s verified statement of use supporting the\napplication, which raises a fact issue as to whether SXJT itself was operating the\nHailuo AI application in the United States. While Defendants dispute SXJT\u2019s\ninvolvement, they do not dispute that operating Hailuo AI constitutes purposeful\ndirection. Because the record contains conflicting evidence about whether SXJT\noperates Hailuo AI, which must be resolved in Plaintiffs\u2019 favor, the Court need not\nconsider the parties\u2019 arguments about whether other conduct establishes purposeful\ndirection.\n\n 2.\n\n In reply, SXJT for the first time addresses the second prong of specific\njurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiffs\u2019 claims do not arise from or relate to its\ntrademark application, but that Plaintiffs instead \u201callege that the Hailuo AI tool\nreproduces copyrighted characters when subscribers submit text prompts.\u201d Dkt.\nNo. 53 at 11. As discussed, SXJT\u2019s statement of use raises a fact issue as to\nwhether SXJT was itself involved in operating Hailuo AI in the United States\u2014the\nvery conduct SXJT concedes is at the heart of the complaint. Thus, SXJT has not\nshown that its contacts are unrelated to Plaintiffs\u2019 claims.\n\n 3.\n\n Because Plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing on the first two prongs,\nthe burden shifts to SXJT to \u201cpresent a compelling case\u201d that the exercise of\npersonal jurisdiction over it would be unreasonable. Axiom Foods, 874 F.3d at\n1068\u201369. SXJT made no attempt to satisfy its burden in its motion, instead relying\non the argument that Plaintiffs \u201cfail at prong one.\u201d Dkt. No. 34 at 13 of 18.\nPlaintiffs relied on that failure in their opposition (Dkt. No. 43 at 17\u201318), and\nSXJT\u2019s largely conclusory argument in its reply comes too late. See Zamani v.\nCarnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007) (\u201cThe district court need not consider\narguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.\u201d); Loomis v. Slendertone\nDistrib., Inc., 420 F. Supp. 3d 1046, 1071 (S.D. Cal. 2019) (denying Rule 12(b)(2)\nmotion where \u201cDefendant has not directly addressed [the third] prong and thus\nfails to meet its burden to prove the unreasonableness of jurisdiction\u201d).\n\n * * *\n\n In sum, the record contains competing evidence that must be resolved in\nPlaintiffs\u2019 favor at this stage. If, as Defendants insist, SXJT had no involvement in\nthe operation of Hailuo AI in the United States, it may ultimately prevail on its\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 57 Filed 05/22/26 Page 9 of 12 Page ID\n #:1293\n\n\n\npersonal-jurisdiction defense. But it has not established that it is entitled to\ndismissal on that basis at the pleading stage.\n\n III.\n\n Nanonoble moves to dismiss Plaintiffs\u2019 claims for failure to state a claim.\nDkt. No. 35. SXJT joins the motion in the event it is subject to personal\njurisdiction. Dkt. No. 34 at 3 of 18. Defendants\u2019 arguments do not distinguish\namong them, and in the absence of a Rule 8 challenge, the Court assumes that the\nallegations apply equally to Nanonoble and SXJT.\n\n A.\n\n To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff must allege \u201cenough facts to\nstate a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.\u201d Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550\nU.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim has \u201cfacial plausibility\u201d if the facts pleaded\n\u201callow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for\nthe misconduct alleged.\u201d Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). All well-\npleaded factual allegations must be accepted as true, but a court need not credit\n\u201c[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action\u201d or \u201ca legal conclusion\ncouched as a factual allegation.\u201d Id. (cleaned up).\n\n B.\n\n In contending that Plaintiffs fail to state a plausible claim, Defendants raise\nnumerous arguments that miss the forest for the trees. The complaint plainly\nalleges plausible claims for direct and secondary copyright infringement, and the\nCourt need only address a few of Defendants\u2019 arguments.\n\n First, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged ownership\nof valid, registered copyrights in the characters at issue, independent of the\nunderlying works in which they appear. \u201c[C]opyright protection extends not only\nto an original work as a whole, but also to \u2018sufficiently distinctive\u2019 elements, like\ncomic book characters, contained within the work.\u201d DC Comics v. Towle, 802\nF.3d 1012, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015). Although not every character in a comic book,\nmovie, or television show is entitled to copyright protection, characters that are\n\u201cespecially distinctive\u201d\u2014i.e., that are \u201csufficiently delineated and display\nconsistent, widely identifiable traits\u201d\u2014are protected. Id. (cleaned up). The\ncomplaint identifies dozens of extremely well-known characters that satisfy this\nstandard, along with hundreds of copyrighted works in which they appear. Some\nof these characters have previously been found protected by courts. See Dkt. No.\n\n 9\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 57 Filed 05/22/26 Page 10 of 12 Page ID\n #:1294\n\n\n\n42 at 5\u20136 (collecting cases). Defendants admit in their reply that they \u201cdo not\nchallenge those characters\u201d but claim that the complaint does not allege adequate\ndetail for at least 41 other characters. Dkt. No. 55 at 1\u20132. The Court need not\nassess each character individually because a single protected character is sufficient\nto sustain a plausible claim, and Defendants concede that some of the characters\nare protected. Moreover, the fact that inputting a character\u2019s name into\nDefendants\u2019 software with no description results in a near-perfect visual\nreproduction (as in the example with R2-D2 and C-3PO above) makes it entirely\nplausible that the characters are distinctive and have widely identifiable traits.\nDefendants\u2019 contrary suggestion is meritless. Nor have Defendants (1) disputed\nthat the characters appear in the listed works or (2) cited any law requiring at the\npleading stage more detail than Plaintiffs have provided in their 119-page\ncomplaint.\n\n Second, Defendants challenge the adequacy of both theories of direct\ninfringement pleaded in the complaint. See Dkt. No. 1 \u00b6 219 (alleging that\nDefendants infringed Plaintiffs\u2019 copyrights (1) by developing and training the\nHailuo AI service and (2) in the outputs they generate for subscribers). As for the\noutputs, Plaintiffs plausibly allege that Defendants have used the Hailuo AI\napplication to make unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs\u2019 copyrighted characters.\nEven assuming that, as Defendants argue, the complaint\u2019s 52 specific examples\nshowing how Hailuo AI created copies in response to prompts were not themselves\nacts of infringement because Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel were responsible for the prompts,\nthose examples plausibly establish that Hailuo AI readily produces infringing\nimages when prompted. The complaint identifies examples of other infringing\nreproductions not produced by Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel, including images used in\nDefendants\u2019 social media posts. 5 Defendants\u2019 argument that Plaintiffs\u2019 output\ntheory fails for lack of volitional conduct is also unavailing. The complaint alleges\nthat Defendants trained their AI using Plaintiffs\u2019 copyrighted content and then\nspecifically advertised Hailuo AI\u2019s ability to reproduce Plaintiffs\u2019 characters, using\n5\n Relying on a declaration of counsel stating that Defendants\u2019 social media\naccounts had approximately 7,863 posts, Defendants argue that the 13 posts\nidentified in the complaint represent less than 0.17% of Hailuo AI\u2019s social media\noutput. Dkt. No. 35 at 12. Defendants\u2019 reliance on evidence outside the pleadings\nis improper on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899\nF.3d 988, 998 (9th Cir. 2018). Even if the declaration could be considered,\nPlaintiffs\u2019 selection of 13 examples of infringement cannot be construed as a\nrepresentation that none of the thousands of other posts by Defendants depict\nPlaintiffs\u2019 characters.\n\n\n 10\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 57 Filed 05/22/26 Page 11 of 12 Page ID\n #:1295\n\n\n\nimages of those characters. This alleged volitional conduct goes beyond merely\noperating a website on which users are able to independently upload infringing\ncontent. At the pleading stage, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged direct\ninfringement. 6\n\n Third, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged secondary\ninfringement based on either vicarious or contributory liability. Under the latter\ntheory, a person \u201cwho distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to\ninfringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to\nfoster infringement\u201d is liable for resulting infringement by third parties. Metro-\nGoldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 919 (2005). The\ncomplaint alleges that Defendants market Hailuo AI as a \u201cHollywood studio in\nyour pocket,\u201d advertise with Hailuo AI-generated videos featuring Plaintiffs\u2019\nprotected characters, and sponsor instructional videos showing how to create\ninfringing content on Hailuo AI by using the prompt \u201cSpider-man and Supergirl\nkissing in the park\u201d to generate a video depicting those two protected characters.\nDkt. No. 1 \u00b6\u00b6 1, 169, 171\u201372. The complaint also includes examples of allegedly\ninfringing videos produced by customers and featured on Defendants\u2019 website. At\nthe pleading stage, these allegations are sufficient to plausibly allege contributory\ninfringement based on Defendants\u2019 affirmative steps to induce infringement. 7\n\n The extensive examples contained in the complaint are not alleged to be the\nonly instances of infringement by Hailuo AI, as Defendants seem to suggest. Rule\n8 requires only \u201ca short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is\nentitled to relief,\u201d not an exhaustive recitation of every infringing act. Fed. R. Civ.\nP. 8(a)(2); YellowCake, Inc. v. DashGo, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-0803, 2022 WL\n172934, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2022) (\u201c[T]o plausibly plead contributory\ncopyright infringement, [plaintiff] need not identify every instance of contributory\ninfringement but must allege representative examples of how each Defendant\n\n6\n The Court therefore need not reach Defendants\u2019 argument that the part of the\ndirect infringement claim based on the training of Hailuo AI is subject to dismissal\nbased on extraterritoriality. See Franklin v. Midwest Recovery Sys., LLC, No.\n8:18-CV-02085-JLS, 2020 WL 3213676, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2020)\n(explaining that Rule 12(b)(6) \u201cdoes not provide a mechanism for dismissing only\na portion of a claim\u201d) (collecting cases).\n7\n Because Rule 12(b)(6) does not permit dismissal of part of a claim, the Court\nneed not decide whether the vicarious infringement theory is also plausibly\nalleged. Franklin, 2020 WL 3213676, at *1.\n\n\n 11\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 57 Filed 05/22/26 Page 12 of 12 Page ID\n #:1296\n\n\n\neither materially contributed to direct infringement by another or induced the\ninfringement by another.\u201d); Perfect 10, Inc. v. Cybernet Ventures, Inc., 167 F.\nSupp. 2d 1114, 1120 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (\u201cRequiring a statement of each and every\nexample [of copyright infringement] would defeat the regime established by Rule\n8.\u201d). Plaintiffs\u2019 complaint gives Defendants more than adequate notice of the basis\nof Plaintiffs\u2019 claims and plausibly alleges widespread, intentional acts of direct and\nsecondary infringement. Defendants have not shown that they are entitled to\ndismissal of either of Plaintiffs\u2019 claims.\n\n IV.\n\n Defendants\u2019 motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal\njurisdiction and failure to state a claim are denied. Defendants shall file their\nanswer(s) no later than June 5, 2026.\n\n\n\nDate: May 22, 2026 ___________________________\n Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.\n United States District Judge\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-23T12:08:05.532792-07:00","document_number":"57","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047857740","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Dismiss","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-22T14:33:15.731329-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:22.022306-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-22","time_filed":"14:19:11","entry_number":57,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":230,"description":"ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS [DKT. NOS. 34, 35 ] by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim are denied. Defendants shall file their answer(s) no later than June 5, 2026. (chk) (Entered: 05/22/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464903137/","id":464903137,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480092780/","id":480092780,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/56/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-05-21T19:01:51.547184-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.972637-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"56","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047848703","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Leave","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492171972/","id":492171972,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/56/1/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-09-01T15:15:30.030502-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-01T15:15:30.030517-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":122265,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"56","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"031047848704","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-21T19:01:51.511368-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.920371-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-21","time_filed":"18:44:56","entry_number":56,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":228,"description":"APPLICATION to Allow More than One Attorney to Argue at the May 29, 2026 Hearing filed by Defendants Nanonoble Pte. Ltd., Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Schwartz, Robert) (Entered: 05/21/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464300999/","id":464300999,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479469851/","id":479469851,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/55/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-05-15T23:34:44.422505-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.871058-07:00","sha1":"a4483d1e2fee39f18cffabcb02678e03cc39ac92","page_count":21,"file_size":493902,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.55.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.55.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/479469851.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 1 of 21 Page ID\n #:1258\n\n\n\n 1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &\n SULLIVAN, LLP\n 2 Robert M. Schwartz (Bar No. 117166)\n 3 robertschwartz@quinnemanuel.com\n Daniel C. Posner (Bar No. 232009)\n 4 danposner@quinnemanuel.com\n Aaron Perahia (Bar No. 304554)\n 5 aaronperahia@quinnemanuel.com\n Moon Hee Lee (Bar No. 318020)\n 6 moonheelee@quinnemanuel.com\n 7 Bradley Kahn (Bar No. 364637)\n bradleykahn@quinnemanuel.com\n 8 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor\n Los Angeles, California 90017-2543\n 9 Telephone: (213) 443-3000\n10 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100\n11 Attorneys for Defendant\n Nanonoble Pte. Ltd.\n12\n13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION\n15\n16 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., a Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n Delaware corporation; UNIVERSAL\n17 CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PTE.\n18 LLLP, a Delaware limited liability LTD.\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF\n limited partnership; WARNER BROS. MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT\n19 ENTERTAINMENT INC., a Delaware TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6);\n corporation; MARVEL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND\n20 CHARACTERS, INC., a Delaware AUTHORITIES\n21 corporation; MVL FILM FINANCE\n LLC, a Delaware limited liability Date: May 29, 2026\n22 company; LUCASFILM LTD. LLC, a Time: 8:30 a.m.\n California limited liability company; Place: Courtroom 6C\n23 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM Judge: Hon. Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.\n CORPORATION, a Delaware\n24 corporation; DC COMICS, a New York Trial Date: July 12, 2027\n25 general partnership; THE CARTOON\n NETWORK, INC., a Delaware\n26 corporation; TURNER\n ENTERTAINMENT CO., a Delaware\n27 corporation; HANNA-BARBERA\n28 PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Delaware\n corporation; and DREAMWORKS\n Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 2 of 21 Page ID\n #:1259\n\n\n\n 1 ANIMATION L.L.C., a Delaware\n limited liability company,\n 2\n 3 Plaintiffs,\n\n 4 vs.\n 5 MINIMAX, a Chinese company;\n SHANGHAI XIYU JIZHI\n 6 TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., a Chinese\n 7 limited company; NANONOBLE PTE.\n LTD., a Singaporean private limited\n 8 company and DOES 1 through 20,\n inclusive,\n 9\n10 Defendants.\n\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n 2 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 3 of 21 Page ID\n #:1260\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n 2 Page\n 3 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1\n 4 ARGUMENT............................................................................................................1\n 5 I. THE STUDIOS HAVE NOT CURED THEIR FAILURE TO ALLEGE\n COPYRIGHTABLE AND REGISTERED CHARACTERS ..........................1\n 6\n A. Labels Like \u201cIconic\u201d And \u201cDistinctive\u201d Are Not Legally\n 7 Meaningful Allegations of Protectable Traits. .......................................1\n 8 B. The Studios Still Do Not Link Registrations To Character Traits. .........3\n 9 II. THE DIRECT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM REMAINS DEFICIENT ..............4\n10 A. The Training Allegations Rest On Speculation. ....................................4\n11 B. The Output Allegations Are Neither Actionable Nor Sufficient. ...........6\n12 1. The Studios Do Not Dispute That They Created The\n Outputs At The Heart of This Case. ............................................6\n13\n 2. The Remaining Output Allegations Do Not Plausibly\n14 Allege Nanonoble\u2019s Volitional Conduct. ....................................7\n15 III. THE SECONDARY INFRINGEMENT CLAIM FARES NO BETTER ........8\n16 A. The Studios Still Cannot Allege Third-Party Direct Infringement. ........8\n17 B. The Studios Satisfy Neither Prong Of Vicarious Liability. ....................9\n18 1. Neither Filtering Nor Contractual Relationships Establish\n A Right To Control Infringement. ...............................................9\n19\n 2. Rebranding A Flat Fee As A \u201cDraw\u201d Does Not Create A\n20 Direct Financial Benefit. ........................................................... 11\n21 C. The Studios Fail To Sufficiently Plead Inducement Under Cox. ......... 12\n22 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 13\n23 CERTIFICATE OF L.R. 11-6.2 COMPLIANCE RE: WORD COUNT ................. 15\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n i Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 4 of 21 Page ID\n #:1261\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n 2 Page\n 3 Cases\n 4 Advance Local Media LLC v. Cohere Inc.,\n 2025 WL 3171892 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2025) ....................................................9\n 5\n 6 Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Howell,\n 554 F. Supp. 2d 976 (D. Ariz. 2008) ..................................................................6\n 7\n Biani v. Showtime Networks, Inc.,\n 8\n 2024 WL 6836918 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2024) ....................................................3\n 9\n BMI v. QM Entertainment,\n10 2026 WL 972408 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2026) ................................................ 11\n11\n Concord Music Group, Inc. v. X Corp.,\n12 2024 WL 945325 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2024) ....................................................4\n13 Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment,\n14 146 S. Ct. 959 (2026) ................................................................................. 12, 13\n15 Crunchyroll, Inc. v. Pledge,\n16 2014 WL 1347492 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014) ....................................................5\n\n17 Daniels v. Walt Disney Co.,\n 958 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2020) .......................................................................... 2, 3\n18\n19 David v. CBS Interactive Inc.,\n 2012 WL 12884914 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2012) ................................................. 10\n20\n Facebook Inc. v. Namecheap Inc.,\n21 2020 WL 6585534 (D. Ariz. Nov. 10, 2020) ......................................................5\n22\n Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc.,\n23 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 10\n24 Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network, L.L.C.,\n25 747 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................7\n26 Knievel v. ESPN,\n27 393 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................6\n\n28\n ii Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 5 of 21 Page ID\n #:1262\n\n\n\n 1 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,\n 545 U.S. 913 (2005) ................................................................................... 12, 13\n 2\n 3 Microsoft Corp. v. Rivera,\n 2019 WL 1641349 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2019) ....................................................6\n 4\n New York Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp.,\n 5\n 777 F. Supp. 3d 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) ............................................................ 4, 9\n 6\n Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com,\n 7 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 10\n 8\n Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC,\n 9 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 11\n10 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc.,\n11 847 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................................................ 4, 5, 7, 11\n12 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa International Servivce Association,\n13 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 11\n\n14 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V.,\n 962 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ..............................................................5\n15\n16 Ryan v. CARL Corp.,\n 23 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1998) ................................................................6\n17\n Shropshire v. Canning,\n18 809 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ..............................................................5\n19\n Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.,\n20 690 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (C.D. Cal. 2009) ..............................................................3\n21 Sound N Light Animatronics Co. v. Cloud B, Inc.,\n22 2017 WL 3081685 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2017) ......................................................5\n23 Spanski Enterprises v. Telewizja Polska, S.A.,\n24 883 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ...........................................................................5\n\n25 Summit Kaiju LLC v. Legend Pictures, LLC,\n 2022 WL 2235460 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2022) ................................................ 3, 4\n26\n27 U.S. v. Bestfoods,\n 524 U.S. 51 (1998) .............................................................................................5\n28\n iii Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 6 of 21 Page ID\n #:1263\n\n\n\n 1 VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc.,\n 918 F.3d 723 (9th Cir. 2019) ........................................................................ 7, 10\n 2\n 3 Statutes\n\n 4 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 103 ......................................................................................................3\n 5\n 6\n 7\n 8\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n iv Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 7 of 21 Page ID\n #:1264\n\n\n\n 1 INTRODUCTION\n 2 The Studios\u2019 Opposition does not overcome the Complaint\u2019s deficiencies\n 3 identified in the Motion. The Court should dismiss it, with prejudice.\n 4 On copyrightability, the Studios focus on a select few characters that courts\n 5 have held protectable. Yet they ignore the dozens for which they allege no\n 6 protectable traits or allege only conclusory labels or generic archetypes. For at least\n 7 41 of the characters at issue, the Studios fail to plausibly allege each element of\n 8 Towle\u2019s \u201cespecially distinctive\u201d standard. And the Studios have not linked any\n 9 character or its traits to any copyright registration.\n10 On direct infringement, the Studios fail to revive either their training or output\n11 theories. On training, they identify no act of scraping, copying, or model\n12 development in the U.S.\u2014only speculation that scraping \u201chighly likely\u201d touched\n13 U.S. servers. That\u2019s not sufficient. On outputs, they do not deny that they created\n14 the 52 outputs at the heart of their case. And their basis for volitional conduct\n15 collapses because the users\u2014not Nanonoble\u2014select the content of each output.\n16 On secondary infringement, the Studios point to nine third-party social media\n17 posts and the 52 outputs that they manufactured. Their vicarious liability theory\n18 shows neither control over users\u2019 prompts nor a causal link between infringement\n19 and revenue. And their inducement theory connects no alleged \u201cpromotional\u201d act,\n20 viable or not, to any act of third-party infringement.\n21 ARGUMENT\n22 I. THE STUDIOS HAVE NOT CURED THEIR FAILURE TO ALLEGE\n23 COPYRIGHTABLE AND REGISTERED CHARACTERS\n24 A. Labels Like \u201cIconic\u201d And \u201cDistinctive\u201d Are Not Legally\n25 Meaningful Allegations of Protectable Traits.\n26 The Studios do not cure the copyrightability deficiencies for at least 41 of the\n27 characters. The Studios devote most of their argument to a handful of characters\n28 that courts have found protectable. Opp. 4-6. Nanonoble does not challenge those\n 1 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 8 of 21 Page ID\n #:1265\n\n\n\n 1 characters. Nanonoble challenges the dozens of other characters for which the\n 2 Studios allege no protectable traits or only generic traits or conclusory labels.\n 3 The Studios concede that no character satisfies the \u201cstory being told\u201d test.\n 4 Mot. 10; Opp. 3-5. The only question is whether the Studios plausibly allege all\n 5 three elements of Towle\u2019s \u201cespecially distinctive\u201d standard: (1) physical and\n 6 conceptual qualities, (2) sufficient delineation showing consistent, identifiable traits,\n 7 and (3) \u201csome unique elements of expression.\u201d Daniels v. Walt Disney Co., 958\n 8 F.3d 767, 771 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff failed to allege\n 9 \u201cconsistent, identifiable character traits and attributes\u201d). For at least 41 of the\n10 characters, the Studios have satisfied none:\n11 \u2022 Nineteen characters have no alleged traits. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 53 (Marge, Lisa,\n12 Maggie), 124 (Mandalorian, Grogu), 133 (WALL-E), 134 (Sulley,\n13 Mike Wazowski), 137 (Flounder), 138 (Simba, Nala), 139 (Moana),\n14 154 (Donkey, Princess Fiona), 169 (Black Panther, Thanos), 170\n15 (Rocket Raccoon), 171-72 (Supergirl), 185 (Gru).\n16 \u2022 Twelve characters have no alleged physical traits. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 44\n17 (Chewbacca), 51 (Deadpool, Groot, Wolverine, Captain America), 61\n18 (Lilo, Olaf, Ariel, Jasmine, Aladdin, Mulan, Snow White).\n19 \u2022 Two characters have no alleged conceptual traits. Compl. \u00b6 76 (Daffy\n20 Duck, Tweety).\n21 \u2022 Two characters are described only by plot function, not protectable\n22 traits. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 69 (Joker), 102 (Toothless).\n23 \u2022 Six characters are alleged only as stock archetypes, not unique\n24 expression. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 43 (Stormtroopers, Clone Troopers), 57\n25 (Lightning McQueen), 79 (Tom and Jerry), 102 (Hiccup).\n26 The Studios argue that they need not allege an \u201cextensive and exhaustive list\n27 of traits\u201d and that copyrightability can be deferred until summary judgment. Opp. 4-\n28 5. But the Studios\u2019 cited cases still require pleading facts to satisfy each Towle\n 2 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 9 of 21 Page ID\n #:1266\n\n\n\n 1 element. See id. (citing Biani v. Showtime Networks, Inc., 2024 WL 6836918, at *4\n 2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2024); Summit Kaiju LLC v. Legend Pictures, LLC, 2022 WL\n 3 2235460, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2022)). And Daniels resolved copyrightability\n 4 at the pleading stage, affirming dismissal where, as here, the allegations failed\n 5 Towle\u2019s second and third prongs. 958 F.3d at 773.\n 6 B. The Studios Still Do Not Link Registrations To Character Traits.\n 7 The Studios do not address the registration gap that Nanonoble identified.\n 8 Mot. 7-8; Opp. 6. They do not identify where each character first appeared. They\n 9 do not identify which registrations cover which character traits. They claim that\n10 their character lists are \u201cnon-exhaustive\u201d and \u201crepresentative\u201d (Compl. \u00b6 217) and\n11 attach hundreds of registrations\u2014mostly for sequels\u2014without linking any\n12 registration to any of the characters.\n13 That vagueness lets the Studios avoid the copyrightability analysis and treat\n14 each sequel registration as a separate \u201cinfringed work\u201d for statutory damages. But\n15 derivative-work registrations do not cover \u201cpreexisting material employed in the\n16 work.\u201d 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 103(b). Characters first expressed in earlier works are excluded\n17 from later registrations. Siegel v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc., 690 F. Supp. 2d 1048,\n18 1059 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (holding that \u201ccharacters which appear throughout [a] series\n19 are a part of the underlying [initial] work upon which the later works are based\u201d).\n20 The Studios ignore this point. Mot. 7-8; Opp. 6. Instead, they argue that they\n21 need not plead registration details. Opp. 6. But Nanonoble has not demanded\n22 registration details. It has asked that the Studios identify which registrations cover\n23 which characters or traits. The Studios also argue that \u201cregistration of a work where\n24 a character appears is sufficient to show ownership.\u201d Opp. 3, 6 (citing Summit\n25 Kaiju, 2022 WL 2235460, at *3-4). But Summit Kaiju supports Nanonoble. The\n26 plaintiff there owned a specific character-design registration, alleged traits satisfying\n27 each Towle prong, and tied its claim to that registration and that defined set of traits.\n28\n 3 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 10 of 21 Page ID\n #:1267\n\n\n\n 1 See Summit Kaiju, 2022 WL 2235460, at *1, *3-4. The Studios have done none of\n 2 this.\n 3 II. THE DIRECT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM REMAINS DEFICIENT\n 4 A. The Training Allegations Rest On Speculation.\n 5 The Studios try to escape extraterritoriality by blurring training and outputs\n 6 into a \u201cmulti-stage infringement pipeline.\u201d Opp. 7-8. But the Studios plead these as\n 7 separate theories implicating different section 106 rights: training concerns\n 8 reproduction through scraping and model development (Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 161-64); outputs\n 9 concern preparation of derivative works, display, and distribution of generated\n10 videos (id. \u00b6\u00b6 165-68). The Court can dismiss the training theory without reaching\n11 the output theory. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc., 847 F.3d 657, 667-70 (9th Cir.\n12 2017) (affirming dismissal of display-right and distribution-right theories at the\n13 pleading stage while assessing reproduction-right theory at summary judgment).\n14 Courts do the same for distinct factual predicates within a single claim. See,\n15 e.g., N.Y. Times Co. v. Microsoft Corp., 777 F. Supp. 3d 283, 328 (S.D.N.Y. 2025)\n16 (dismissing AI \u201cabridgment\u201d theory for lack of substantial similarity while\n17 preserving \u201cregurgitation\u201d theory within the same section 501 claim); Concord\n18 Music Grp., Inc. v. X Corp., 2024 WL 945325, at *6, *8 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2024)\n19 (dismissing direct and vicarious counts against social media platform while\n20 narrowing contributory count to three specific practices).\n21 Every domestic contact that the Studios cite\u2014soliciting U.S. customers\n22 through an English-language website, caching video files on Cloudflare servers,\n23 marketing through the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, accepting U.S.\n24 dollar payments, and advertising to U.S. consumers (Opp. 8-9)\u2014concerns output\n25 delivery or marketing, not training.\n26 And every case the Studios cite to avoid extraterritoriality involved a\n27 defendant that transmitted or delivered unauthorized copies of copyrighted works to\n28 audiences in the U.S.\u2014the domestic act that made foreign conduct actionable.\n 4 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 11 of 21 Page ID\n #:1268\n\n\n\n 1 Spanski Enters. v. Telewizja Polska, S.A., 883 F.3d 904, 916 (D.C. Cir. 2018)\n 2 (holding that a Polish broadcaster who \u201cdirect[ed] infringing performances into the\n 3 United States from abroad\u201d committed domestic infringement); Sound N Light\n 4 Animatronics Co., Ltd. v. Cloud B, Inc., 2017 WL 3081685, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 7,\n 5 2017) (finding Copyright Act applied where defendant sold counterfeit products to\n 6 U.S. consumers); Shropshire v. Canning, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1139, 1145-46 (N.D. Cal.\n 7 2011) (finding domestic infringement where defendant uploaded copyrighted song\n 8 to YouTube\u2019s California servers); Crunchyroll, Inc. v. Pledge, 2014 WL 1347492, at\n 9 *17 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2014) (same for copyrighted videos).\n10 The Studios allege no comparable act. Extending the Copyright Act to\n11 foreign training because U.S. users can access the platform online would \u201cdestroy\n12 the concept of territoriality inherent in the Copyright Act.\u201c Perfect 10, Inc. v.\n13 Yandex N.V., 962 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1153 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (rejecting claim where\n14 images resided on foreign servers and plaintiff speculated copies \u201cmay very well\n15 have been stored\u201c domestically).\n16 The Studios\u2019 parent-company theory (Opp. 9) also fails. Direct copyright\n17 infringement requires that the defendant cause the specific infringing act.\n18 Giganews, 847 F.3d at 666 (holding that \u201cdirect infringement requires the plaintiff\n19 to show causation (also referred to as \u2018volitional conduct\u2019) by the defendant\u201d). The\n20 Studios allege only that each defendant \u201cdirectly participates\u201d in an infringement\n21 \u201centerprise,\u201d using the collective \u201cMiniMax\u201d label throughout their training\n22 allegations without specifying which entity scraped, which trained, or which\n23 distributed. Opp. 9; Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 161-68. Those are conclusory labels, not facts.\n24 Neither of the Studios\u2019 cases overcomes that deficiency; both required entity-\n25 specific allegations of participation. See U.S. v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 68 (1998)\n26 (holding that the focus \u201cmust necessarily be\u201d on \u201cthe relationship between [the\n27 parent] and the facility itself\u201d); Facebook Inc. v. Namecheap Inc., 2020 WL\n28\n 5 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 12 of 21 Page ID\n #:1269\n\n\n\n 1 6585534, at *6 (D. Ariz. Nov. 10, 2020) (dismissing direct-participant claim for\n 2 insufficient allegations).\n 3 B. The Output Allegations Are Neither Actionable Nor Sufficient.\n 4 1. The Studios Do Not Dispute That They Created The Outputs\n 5 At The Heart of This Case.\n 6 The 52 output allegations are not actionable. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 118-60. The Studios\n 7 do not dispute that a copyright owner cannot infringe its own copyright. Mot. 11;\n 8 Opp. 10. They do not allege that any third party submitted the prompts. Compl.\n 9 \u00b6\u00b6 118-60; Opp. 10. Nor could they. The Studios\u2019 lawyers did.\n10 The Studios argue that the Court may not consider the Posner Declaration on\n11 a Rule 12 motion. Opp. 10 n.3. The Court can. The 52 outputs are the centerpiece\n12 of the Complaint and are incorporated by reference. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d\n13 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that a court may consider on a 12(b)(6) motion\n14 documents a complaint \u201cnecessarily relies\u201d upon). But even setting the Declaration\n15 aside, the Studios do not deny that platform records trace the outputs to their\n16 lawyers. Posner Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 4-5.\n17 The Studios also argue that hiring investigators does not \u201cauthorize\u201d\n18 infringement. Opp. 10. But that\u2019s not the issue. In every case they cite, the\n19 defendant distributed infringing copies as ongoing conduct, and the investigator\n20 merely documented it. Microsoft Corp. v. Rivera, 2019 WL 1641349, at *1 (C.D.\n21 Cal. Apr. 16, 2019) (investigator purchased counterfeit copy from ongoing\n22 counterfeit ring); Ryan v. CARL Corp., 23 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 1998)\n23 (investigators ordered unauthorized copies through document-delivery service);\n24 Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Howell, 554 F. Supp. 2d 976, 978 (D. Ariz. 2008)\n25 (investigator downloaded files from publicly shared folder). None involved the\n26 plaintiff\u2019s investigator committing the act of infringement being sued upon.\n27\n28\n 6 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 13 of 21 Page ID\n #:1270\n\n\n\n 1 2. The Remaining Output Allegations Do Not Plausibly Allege\n 2 Nanonoble\u2019s Volitional Conduct.\n 3 To allege volitional conduct, the defendant must have \u201cexercised control\u201d\n 4 beyond general website operation, \u201cselected\u201d copyrighted material, or \u201cinstigated\u201d\n 5 its copying. Giganews, 847 F.3d at 670. The relevant question is \u201cwho selects the\n 6 copyrighted content: the defendant or its customers.\u201d VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Grp., Inc.,\n 7 918 F.3d 723, 731-32 (9th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). Here, the user selects by\n 8 typing a prompt. Compl. \u00b6 6. The Studios do not allege that any Nanonoble\n 9 employee generated any output. The Studios raise five counterarguments; none\n10 cures this deficiency.\n11 First, the Studios argue that Nanonoble \u201cselected\u201d copyrighted works by\n12 choosing training data and that the model was \u201ctrained\u201d on the Studios\u2019 works.\n13 Opp. 13, 15. But volitional conduct turns on content-specific curation, not\n14 antecedent platform design. VHT, 918 F.3d at 733, 737 (finding volitional conduct\n15 only where Zillow employees \u201ccurated, selected, and tagged\u201d specific photos, not\n16 where the platform automatically displayed user-uploaded content). Every tool that\n17 enables infringement does so because of its creators\u2019 design choices. See, e.g., Fox\n18 Broad. Co., Inc. v. Dish Network, L.L.C., 747 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2014)\n19 (holding that \u201cthe user, not Dish, makes the copy\u201d despite Dish selecting which\n20 channels to record and configuring the recording system). The question is whether\n21 Nanonoble made the content-specific decision that caused a copyrighted work to\n22 appear in a particular output. The Studios do not allege that it did.\n23 Second, the Studios argue that Nanonoble \u201cinstigated\u201d infringement by\n24 populating the Explore page with outputs depicting the Studios\u2019 characters and\n25 promoting its ability to reproduce them. Opp. 13-14. But promotion of a platform\n26 does not constitute instigation of the content users create on it. VHT, 918 F.3d at\n27 738 (holding that Zillow\u2019s \u201cpromotion of Digs, including encouraging users to share\n28 photos through its site,\u201d did not constitute \u201c\u2018instigat[ing]\u2019 user copying\u201d).\n 7 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 14 of 21 Page ID\n #:1271\n\n\n\n 1 Third, the Studios argue that automated systems can be volitional actors.\n 2 Opp. 13. But each case they cite involved a system that made a content-specific\n 3 decision about particular copyrighted material\u2014selecting one infringing photo from\n 4 competing submissions, reproducing user-uploaded images on merchandise, or\n 5 retrieving copyrighted album art without any user request. See Opp. 13 (citing\n 6 cases). The Studios do not allege that Hailuo AI does any of these things.\n 7 Fourth, the Studios argue that Nanonoble violated their distribution rights by\n 8 \u201cmaking available\u201d copyrighted content. Opp. 11. But the Studios do not allege\n 9 that the Hailuo AI models or tool distribute copies of the Studios\u2019 works. The\n10 Studios allege only that it can produce short videos depicting their characters\u2014and a\n11 video depicting a character is not a copy of the work in which that character appears.\n12 Every case the Studios cite involved distribution of actual copies\u2014a library\n13 cataloging physical works, a file-sharing network hosting music files, a search\n14 engine linking to infringing images, a set-top box preloaded with copyrighted\n15 programs for immediate playback. See Opp. 11, 14 (citing cases). The Studios\n16 allege no comparable distribution.\n17 Fifth, the Studios invoke the Copyright Office\u2019s AI copyrightability report.\n18 Opp. 15 n.5. But that report addresses whether a user exercises enough creative\n19 control over AI-generated outputs to qualify as their author for purposes of\n20 copyright registration\u2014not whether the platform\u2019s operator is liable for\n21 infringement.\n22 III. THE SECONDARY INFRINGEMENT CLAIM FARES NO BETTER\n23 A. The Studios Still Cannot Allege Third-Party Direct Infringement.\n24 The Studios argue that their \u201cdetailed\u201d allegations support \u201ca plausible\n25 inference that Hailuo AI was in fact generating images and videos featuring\n26 Plaintiffs\u2019 characters in response to user requests.\u201d Opp. 15-16. But the Studios\n27 point to no third-party conduct beyond the nine social media posts. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 170-\n28\n 8 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 15 of 21 Page ID\n #:1272\n\n\n\n 1 73, 186-87, 194-99; Posner Decl. \u00b6 5. The remaining allegations concern the 52\n 2 outputs that the Studios created. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 118-60.\n 3 Those nine social media posts do not suffice. The Studios do not allege that\n 4 the characters depicted in those posts are protectable under Towle or covered by the\n 5 Studios\u2019 registrations. As explained in Section I, the Studios allege no protectable\n 6 traits for dozens of characters and do not link their registrations to specific\n 7 characters. Without that foundation, the nine posts do not establish direct\n 8 infringement by anyone.\n 9 Nor do the nine posts\u20140.1% of nearly 7,800 posts on Hailuo AI\u2019s social\n10 media pages (Posner Decl. \u00b6 6)\u2014support a plausible inference of widespread\n11 infringement. The Studios\u2019 cited cases only underscore the gap. See, e.g., N.Y.\n12 Times Co., 777 F. Supp. 3d at 306-07 (finding third-party infringement plausible\n13 where the plaintiffs provided over 100 pages of third-party infringing outputs and\n14 alleged \u201c\u2018widely publicized\u2019 instances\u201d of third-party infringement); Advance Local\n15 Media LLC v. Cohere Inc., 2025 WL 3171892, at *1, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2025)\n16 (finding allegations sufficient where the plaintiffs provided 75 examples spanning\n17 125 pages and alleged the defendant promoted its tool as a way to \u201cshortcut research\n18 and content analysis\u201d).\n19 If the Court finds these nine social media posts sufficient to allege third-party\n20 infringement, the Studios\u2019 secondary liability claims must be limited to those nine\n21 instances. The Studios cannot use nine posts to bootstrap a theory of \u201cmassive\u201d\n22 infringement encompassing all of the Hailuo AI tool\u2019s outputs, especially the\n23 52 outputs that the Studios created. Cf. Compl. \u00b6 1.\n24 B. The Studios Satisfy Neither Prong Of Vicarious Liability.\n25 1. Neither Filtering Nor Contractual Relationships Establish A\n26 Right To Control Infringement.\n27 The Studios argue that Nanonoble controls infringement because it selects\n28 training data, deploys content filters, terminates accounts, and edits prompts through\n 9 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 16 of 21 Page ID\n #:1273\n\n\n\n 1 a Prompt Optimizer. Opp. 17-18. But the Studios do not address the threshold\n 2 issue: vicarious liability requires control over the direct infringer\u2019s conduct, not\n 3 antecedent design choices. David v. CBS Interactive Inc., 2012 WL 12884914, at *2\n 4 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 13, 2012) (dismissing vicarious liability claim against website with\n 5 links to infringing software because the site lacked control over its users\u2019\n 6 infringement). If subscribers are the direct infringers, the relevant question is\n 7 whether Nanonoble can control their prompts\u2014not whether it selected training data.\n 8 The Studios\u2019 \u201cvending machine\u201d analogy (Opp. 18) does not change this\n 9 analysis. The Studios argue that Nanonoble could have excluded copyrighted works\n10 from its training data. Compl. \u00b6 234. But the ability to have made different design\n11 choices before training is not \u201ca right and ability\u201d to stop infringement now. VHT,\n12 918 F.3d at 746 (explaining that a failure to change operations \u201cis not the same as\n13 declining to exercise a right and ability\u201d to stop infringement (citation omitted)).\n14 The Studios must allege that Nanonoble can identify and stop specific acts of\n15 infringement\u2014not that it could have built a different model. See, e.g., Fonovisa,\n16 Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259, 262-63 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that the\n17 swap meet operator had \u201cthe right to terminate vendors\u201d and \u201cthe ability to control\n18 the activities of vendors on its premises\u201d). The Studios do not allege that\n19 Nanonoble can extract data concerning copyrighted content from the already-trained\n20 model.\n21 The Studios\u2019 filtering and contractual arguments fail for the same reason. A\n22 platform\u2019s ability to filter for non-copyright purposes does not establish \u201cthe right to\n23 stop direct infringement.\u201d Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146,\n24 1173-74 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that Google\u2019s ability to block access to third-party\n25 websites did not \u201cgive Google the right to stop direct infringement by third-party\n26 websites\u201d). The Studios cite Amazon for the opposite proposition\u2014that\n27 Nanonoble\u2019s terms-of-service agreements with its users give Nanonoble \u201cthe legal\n28 right to stop or limit\u201d infringement. Opp. 17. Amazon rejected that theory. See 508\n 10 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 17 of 21 Page ID\n #:1274\n\n\n\n 1 F.3d at 1173-74. And the ability to terminate an account after infringement occurs\n 2 is not the ability to prevent it. Every website can terminate users. That does not\n 3 satisfy the control prong. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int\u2019l Serv. Ass\u2019n, 494 F.3d 788,\n 4 805-06 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that credit card companies\u2019 \u201cliteral power to \u2018stop or\n 5 limit\u2019 the infringement\u201d by denying services did not establish \u201csufficient control\n 6 over the actual infringing activity\u201d).\n 7 2. Rebranding A Flat Fee As A \u201cDraw\u201d Does Not Create A\n 8 Direct Financial Benefit.\n 9 Nanonoble argued that flat periodic payments do not constitute a direct\n10 financial benefit because Hailuo AI charges the same subscription fee regardless of\n11 content. Mot. 17; Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 111-14. The Studios dismiss this as \u201cmiss[ing] the\n12 point\u201d (Opp. 17), but they ignore CCBill (cited at Mot. 17), which held that\n13 \u201creceiving a one-time set-up fee and flat, periodic payments for service from a\n14 person engaging in infringing activities would not constitute receiving a financial\n15 benefit.\u201d Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007)\n16 (citation omitted). The Studios\u2019 \u201cdraw\u201d theory does not overcome CCBill. The\n17 Studios argue that the draw need not be \u201csubstantial\u201d (Opp. 17), but the issue is not\n18 size. The issue is whether any causal link to specific copyrighted content exists.\n19 The financial benefit prong \u201cdemands more than evidence that customers were\n20 drawn to [the defendant] [for] infringing material in general.\u201d Giganews, 847 F.3d\n21 at 673 (citation omitted).\n22 The Studios allege no facts establishing that causal link, such as a share of\n23 subscribers who generate their characters or that any subscriber would leave absent\n24 that capability. Cf. Compl. \u00b6 237 (concluding that character generation \u201cis plainly\n25 an attraction\u201d). The Studios also argue that marketing copyrighted content proves\n26 financial benefit. Opp. 18 (citing BMI v. QM Ent., 2026 WL 972408, at *5-6 (W.D.\n27 Wash. Apr. 10, 2026)). But BMI is distinguishable. There, the defendant was a bar\n28 whose business depended on live music\u2014the very events that constituted the\n 11 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 18 of 21 Page ID\n #:1275\n\n\n\n 1 infringement. See BMI, 2026 WL 972408, at *6. The infringing activity was the\n 2 draw; the customers came for the unauthorized music performances. Hailuo AI is a\n 3 general-purpose video generation tool. Its draw is the ability to create short videos\n 4 on any subject\u2014not the ability to reproduce copyrighted characters.\n 5 C. The Studios Fail To Sufficiently Plead Inducement Under Cox.\n 6 The Studios dismiss the substantial-noninfringing-uses inquiry as \u201cbeside the\n 7 point.\u201d Opp. 19. That concession forecloses any \u201ctailoring\u201d theory because a\n 8 service \u201ccapable of \u2018substantial\u2019 or \u2018commercially significant\u2019 noninfringing uses\u201d\n 9 cannot support tailoring-based liability. Cox Commc\u2019ns, Inc. v. Sony Music Ent.,\n10 146 S. Ct. 959, 967 (2026) (quotation omitted). The Studios\u2019 contributory claim\n11 therefore depends on \u201cinducement.\u201d Under Cox, inducement requires that the\n12 defendant \u201cactively encourage[] infringement through specific acts.\u201d 146 S. Ct. at\n13 967. The Studios do not allege any such act, do not connect any alleged act to third-\n14 party infringement, and cannot convert knowledge into intent.\n15 The Studios\u2019 promotional allegations do not constitute \u201cspecific acts\u201d that\n16 \u201cactively encourage\u201d infringement. The tagline \u201ca Hollywood studio in your\n17 pocket\u201d describes the quality of the outputs. It does not urge anyone to copy\n18 copyrighted content. Compl. \u00b6 1. Nor does the other allegedly copyright-inducing\n19 statement, found in a YouTube video that says, \u201cSuperheroes will heal your soul.\u201d\n20 Id. \u00b6 169. These are not akin to the targeting statements at issue in Grokster, which\n21 told users that, after a court had shut down the Napster piracy site, they could come\n22 to defendants\u2019 platform to resume downloading copyrighted content for free. See\n23 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 939 (2005).\n24 Nor did any of the 13 posts (out of nearly 8,000, or 0.17%) \u201cbroadcast[] a\n25 message designed to stimulate others to commit violations.\u201d Id. at 937. The Studios\n26 also point to one Instagram \u201cpaid partnership\u201d and one tutorial. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 170-73\n27 (Opp. 21). That is not the sustained campaign Grokster demands. There, \u201cnearly\n28 90%\u201d of files were infringing and the business model depended on infringement.\n 12 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 19 of 21 Page ID\n #:1276\n\n\n\n 1 545 U.S. at 922-26. Each of the Studios\u2019 other cited cases involved defendants who\n 2 directly and repeatedly instructed users to obtain specific copyrighted content. See\n 3 Opp. 20-21 (citing cases). There are no comparable allegations here.\n 4 Even if the Studios\u2019 promotional allegations constitute \u201cspecific acts,\u201d\n 5 inducement requires that those acts produced \u201cresulting acts of infringement by third\n 6 parties.\u201d Grokster, 545 U.S. at 936-37. The 52 outputs are not \u201cresulting acts\u201d\u2014the\n 7 Studios created them. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 118-60. And the Studios do not allege that any of\n 8 the nine third-party users who posted content ever saw Nanonoble\u2019s promotional\n 9 posts before doing so\u2014much less, that any of the third parties created those outputs\n10 as a result of any Nanonoble promotion. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 170-73, 186-87, 194-99. If no one\n11 heard the message and no one acted on it, the inducement produced no \u201cresulting\n12 acts\u201d; thus, liability is unjustified regardless of what the defendant said. See\n13 Grokster, 545 U.S. at 930-31, 936-37 (grounding inducement liability in common-\n14 law \u201crules of fault-based liability\u201d and requiring that alleged inducing conduct must\n15 lead to \u201cresulting acts of infringement by third parties\u201d before liability attaches).\n16 The Studios\u2019 final argument\u2014that Nanonoble\u2019s failure to deploy copyright\n17 filters shows inducement (Opp. 21-22)\u2014fails under Cox. The Supreme Court held\n18 that a court cannot impose contributory liability \u201cmerely based on a failure to take\n19 affirmative steps to prevent infringement.\u201d 146 S. Ct. at 968 (quoting Grokster, 545\n20 U.S. at 939 n.12). In Cox, the defendant received over 163,000 infringement notices\n21 and terminated only 32 subscribers, yet the Court found no inducement. 146 S. Ct.\n22 at 965-66. Nanonoble\u2019s alleged inaction pales by comparison.\n23 CONCLUSION\n24 The Court should dismiss the Studios\u2019 claims with prejudice.\n25\n26\n27\n28\n 13 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 20 of 21 Page ID\n #:1277\n\n\n\n 1 Dated: May 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n 2 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART\n 3 & SULLIVAN, LLP\n Robert M. Schwartz\n 4 Daniel C. Posner\n 5 Aaron Perahia\n Moon Hee Lee\n 6 Bradley Kahn\n 7\n 8\n By: _________________________\n 9\n Robert M. Schwartz\n10 Attorneys for Defendant Nanonoble\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n 14 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 55 Filed 05/15/26 Page 21 of 21 Page ID\n #:1278\n\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF L.R. 11-6.2 COMPLIANCE RE: WORD COUNT\n 2 The undersigned, counsel of record for Defendant Nanonoble, certifies that\n 3 this brief contains 3,981 words, which complies with the word limit of the Court\u2019s\n 4 September 23, 2025 Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Stanley\n 5 Blumenfeld, Jr. (Dkt. No. 11).\n 6\n 7 Dated: May 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n 8 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART\n 9 & SULLIVAN, LLP\n Robert M. Schwartz\n10 Daniel C. Posner\n11 Aaron Perahia\n Moon Hee Lee\n12 Bradley Kahn\n13\n14\n By: _________________________\n15\n Robert M. Schwartz\n16 Attorneys for Defendant Nanonoble\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n 15 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n REPLY ISO MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT NANONOBLE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T06:42:45.573573-07:00","document_number":"55","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047798969","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply (Motion related)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-15T23:34:44.397240-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.830340-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-15","time_filed":"23:24:03","entry_number":55,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-15.003","pacer_sequence_number":225,"description":"REPLY in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Memorandum of Points and Authorities 35 filed by Defendant Nanonoble Pte. Ltd.. (Schwartz, Robert) (Entered: 05/15/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464300620/","id":464300620,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479469457/","id":479469457,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/54/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-05-15T23:03:37.615509-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T12:21:33.211600-07:00","sha1":"a7d3403d127dd978534c820c92b0ec2327a8c22c","page_count":4,"file_size":287451,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.54.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.54.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 54 Filed 05/15/26 Page 1 of 4 Page ID\n #:1249\n\n\n\n 1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &\n SULLIVAN, LLP\n 2 Robert M. Schwartz (Bar No. 117166)\n 3 robertschwartz@quinnemanuel.com\n Daniel C. Posner (Bar No. 232009)\n 4 danposner@quinnemanuel.com\n Aaron Perahia (Bar No. 304554)\n 5 aaronperahia@quinnemanuel.com\n Moon Hee Lee (Bar No. 318020)\n 6 moonheelee@quinnemanuel.com\n 7 Bradley Kahn (Bar No. 364637)\n bradleykahn@quinnemanuel.com\n 8 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor\n Los Angeles, California 90017-2543\n 9 Telephone: (213) 443-3000\n10 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100\n11 Attorneys for Defendant Shanghai Xiyu\n Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd.\n12\n13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION\n15\n16 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., a Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n Delaware corporation; UNIVERSAL\n17 CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS DECLARATION OF SHENG\n18 LLLP, a Delaware limited liability JINGYUAN IN SUPPORT OF\n limited partnership; WARNER BROS. DEFENDANT SHANGHAI XIYU\n19 ENTERTAINMENT INC., a Delaware JIZHI TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.\u2019S\n corporation; MARVEL MOTION TO DISMISS\n20 CHARACTERS, INC., a Delaware PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.\n21 corporation; MVL FILM FINANCE 12(b)(2)\n LLC, a Delaware limited liability\n22 company; LUCASFILM LTD. LLC, a Date: May 29, 2026\n California limited liability company; Time: 8:30 a.m.\n23 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM Place: Courtroom 6C\n CORPORATION, a Delaware Judge: Hon. Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.\n24 corporation; DC COMICS, a New York\n25 general partnership; THE CARTOON Trial Date: July 12, 2027\n NETWORK, INC., a Delaware\n26 corporation; TURNER\n ENTERTAINMENT CO., a Delaware\n27 corporation; HANNA-BARBERA\n28 PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Delaware\n corporation; and DREAMWORKS\n 1 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n DECL. OF SHENG JINGYUAN ISO MOT. TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 54 Filed 05/15/26 Page 2 of 4 Page ID\n #:1250\n\n\n\n 1 ANIMATION L.L.C., a Delaware\n limited liability company,\n 2\n 3 Plaintiffs,\n\n 4 vs.\n 5 MINIMAX, a Chinese company;\n SHANGHAI XIYU JIZHI\n 6 TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., a Chinese\n 7 limited company; NANONOBLE PTE.\n LTD., a Singaporean private limited\n 8 company and DOES 1 through 20,\n inclusive,\n 9\n10 Defendants.\n\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n 2 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n DECL. OF SHENG JINGYUAN ISO MOT. TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 54 Filed 05/15/26 Page 3 of 4 Page ID\n #:1251\n\n\n\n 1 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF SHENG JINGYUAN\n 2 I, Sheng Jingyuan, hereby declare as follows:\n 3 1. I am over 18 years of age. I submit this supplemental declaration in\n 4 support of Defendant Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd.\u2019s (\u201cSXJT\u2019s\u201d) Reply\n 5 in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). I have personal\n 6 knowledge of the facts stated in this supplemental declaration and could testify to\n 7 them if called as a witness.\n 8 2. I have served as General Manager of Global Business at MiniMax\n 9 Group Inc. (\u201cMiniMax Group\u201d) since May 2024. In this role, I oversee the Global\n10 Business expansion and operations of MiniMax Group\u2019s products and services,\n11 including Hailuo AI. I am familiar with MiniMax Group\u2019s corporate structure,\n12 including the relationship among its subsidiaries, and with the operations of\n13 Nanonoble Pte. Ltd.(\u201cNanonoble\u201d).\n14 3. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the U.S. Google\n15 Play Store listing for \u201cHailuo AI: Image & Video Maker\u201d (Package ID\n16 ai.hailuo.video), at https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.hailuo.video, as\n17 accessed on May 11, 2026. The listing displays \u201cMiniMax AI\u201d as the display name.\n18 The listing contains an \u201cApp support\u201d drop-down that, when expanded, identifies\n19 \u201cNANONOBLE PTE. LTD.\u201d as the registered developer, with a registered address\n20 at 152 Beach Road, #14-02 Gateway East, Singapore 189721. Exhibit A depicts the\n21 listing with the drop-down expanded. SXJT does not appear on the listing.\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n 3 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n DECL. OF SHENG JINGYUAN ISO MOT. TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 54 Filed 05/15/26 Page 4 of 4 Page ID\n #:1252\n\n\n\n\n 1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of\n 2 America that the foregoing is true and correct.\n 3\n 4 Executed on May 13, 2026, in Shanghai, People's Republic of China.\n 5\n 6\n 7 Sheng Jingyuan\n 8\n 9\n 10\n 11\n 12\n 13\n 14\n 15\n 16\n 17\n 18\n 19\n 20\n 21\n 22\n 23\n 24\n 25\n 26\n 27\n 28\n 4 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n TO DISMISS PURSUANT To FED. R. Crv.\n P. 12(b)(2)\n DECL. OF XUE ZIZHAO ISO MOTION\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-11T01:59:15.313074-07:00","document_number":"54","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047798840","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Declaration","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489445372/","id":489445372,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/54/1/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-08-11T01:58:43.091058-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-23T06:23:36.028503-07:00","sha1":"7eb660d49faeb1711784295ca377b0c73105e872","page_count":5,"file_size":1330719,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.54.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.54.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 54-1 Filed 05/15/26 Page 1 of 5 Page ID\n #:1253\n\f Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 54-1 Filed 05/15/26 Page 2 of 5 Page ID\n #:1254\n A Page Vault\n\nDocument title: Hailuo Al: Image&Video Maker - Apps on Google Play\n\nCapture URL: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.hailuo.video&hl=en_US\n\nPage loaded at (UTC): Mon, 11 May 2026 14:49:36 GMT\n\nCapture timestamp (UTC): Mon, 11 May 2026 14:52:44 GMT\n\nCapture tool: 10.80.0\n\nCollection server IP: 54.145.42.72\n\nBrowser engine: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) @page-\n vault/browser/10.80.0 Chrome/144.0.7559.236 Safari/537.36\n\nOperating system: Linux (Node 24.14.0)\n\nCapture ID: by6rsxhBQAtiFXd4ReJe17\n\n\n\n\n PDF REFERENCE #: 5HZSq45WbHwAwigbT1nG5J\n\f R Google Case\n Play 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n Games Apps Movies & TV Books Kids 54-1\n Document Filed 05/15/26 Page 3 of 5 Page ID Q 2)\n #:1255\n\n\n\n\n Hailuo Al:\n Image&Video Maker\n\n\n\n reamte-licig\n\n\n\n\n Teen\n .\n\n\n\n\n Create anything Endless\n Just by Hailt - Templates\n 5 styles at your Srgectip\n\n\n Diverse Content: Discretion Advised\n\n\n In-App Purchases\n\n\n\n\n App support \u00ab\n\n TM Support email\n contact@hailuoai.com\n\n\n\n O Privacy Policy\n\n Aboutthisapp > About the developer\n\n\n Hailuo Al: Your Al Image&Video Creation Companion NANONOBLE PTE LTD\n Transform your ideas into captivating images&videos with just a few clicks! Hailuo Al harnesses advanced Al wangjiachen.gason@gmail.com\n technology to generate high-quality videos from text descriptions or images 152 BEACH ROAD\n 9 ) At A\n\n\n\n\n . ~ \u2018 #14-N? CATEWA\n A\n Key Features #14-02 GATEWAY EAST\n 4 \u201c \u201c ; ce 4 2079\n\n -Text-to-Image: Generate high-quality images from text prompts to support your creative workflow singapore 189 \u2018 21\n - Text-to-Video: Turn your written descriptions into vivid video content +86 188 0133 6465\n\n Updated on i.\n\n May 8, 2026 Similar apps >\n\n invideo Al: Al Video Generator\n Photography\n invideo INC\n 4.1*\n\n\n\n Data safety >\n \u2018eo Clipfly - Al Baby Dance Video\n Al Art Photo Editor | Everimaging Ltd.\n Safety starts with understanding how developers collect and share your data. Data privacy and security\n 41*\n practices may vary based on your use, region, and age. The developer provided this information and may\n update it over time.\n\n Viggle Al: Meme Maker\n WarpEnaine\n\n\n\n\nDocument title: Hailuo Al: Image&Video Maker - Apps on Google Play\nCapture URL: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.hailuo.video&hl=en_US\nCapture timestamp (UTC): Mon, 11 May 2026 14:52:44 GMT Page 1 of 3\n\f cB Google Case\n Play 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n Games Apps Movies & TV Books Kids 54-1 Filed 05/15/26\n Document Page 4 of 5 Page ID Qa @\n #:1256 Al Art Photo Editor | Everimaging Ltd.\n Safety starts with understanding how developers collect and share your data. Data privacy and security\n 4.1*\n practices may vary based on your use, region, and age. The developer provided this information and may\n update it over time.\n\n\n\n\n v\n Viggle Al: Meme Maker\n WarpEngine\n 4.6%\n \u00abThis app may share these data types with third parties\n Personal info, Financial info and 5 others\n\n\n\n\n oe\n Raven Al: Create, Enhance, Ask\n @ This app may collect these data types\n Personal info, Financial info and 3 others GENZCRAZE\n 3.9 *%\n\n a Data is encrypted in transit\n\n Al Video Editor, Reels: inMelo\n [J ~=\u2014- You can request that data be deleted\n Music Video Editor with Effects & Slideshow\n\n See details 48%\n\n\n\n Captiono: Al Subtitles\n Captiono\n Ratings andreviews > Ratings and reviews are verified @ 4.2%\n\n\n\n O Phone \u00a9 Chromebook Tablet\n\n\n\n ee\n 4 GaZ=>\n . > a7:\n 2 /=2_\n Kkkk 1 aD\n\n 70.8K reviews\n\n\n\n\n C Alex N :\n\n x* February 20, 2026\n\n great quality, very low customer service, lots of issues with their system loved it up until 5 days ago. all of a\n sudden pictures wouldn't generate/automatic failure to generate images. its been like this ever since. |\n emailed customer support the issue and 2 days later they got back to be wanting more info. send it over to\n them promptly and its been at least 5 days with no response. Paid for credits i can't even use. Until this is\n fixed | wouldn't recommend this app at all\n\n 31 people found this review helpful\n\n\n Did you find this helpful? Yes No\n\n\n\n\n ow\n * December 29, 2025\n\n they cheated me out of 3 day trial for 90. cents and charged me $9.99 after the second day and then said my\n subscription only lasted for three days and it was going to renew again and they were going to charge me\n $9.99 again! it's supposed to be $9.99 for one month with 1,000 credits. | paid $0.90 + $9.99 and| only got\n less than 20 videos for only 3 days. | want a refund!!!\n\n 681 people found this review helpful\n\n\n Did you find this helpful? Yes No\n\n\n\n\n = 1955Chevy406\n\n * September 1, 2025\n\n Total rip-off scammers. It's cool of them to give you some free credits to try out the app before buying, but\n you don't get a chance to use it all. | had over 80 credits left, and today when | tried to make a single image, it\n tells me | have NO CREDITS left. | checked, and sure enough everything | had left disappeared! Seems like\n everyone who has been sampling this app experienced the same thing. Al isn't even accurate when using\n imanes tn create a nictiure Wacte of time @\n\n\n\n\nDocument title: Hailuo Al: Image&Video Maker - Apps on Google Play\nCapture URL: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.hailuo.video&hl=en_US\nCapture timestamp (UTC): Mon, 11 May 2026 14:52:44 GMT Page 2 of 3\n\f GoGoogle Case\n Play 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n Games Apps Movies & TV Books Kids 54-1 Filed 05/15/26\n Document Page 5 of 5 Page ID Q @\u00ae\n E alle\u00e9ad CUSTO e UDDO e ue and gay ate EY GOT DacK (0 DE\n #:1257\n Wa 0 OFfe Oo. Send OVE\n\n them promptly and its been at least 5 days with no response. Paid for credits i can't even use. Until this is\n fixed | wouldn't recommend this app at all\n\n 31 people found this review helpful\n\n\n Did you find this helpful? Yes No\n\n\n\n\n Ou\n * December 29, 2025\n\n they cheated me out of 3 day trial for 90. cents and charged me $9.99 after the second day and then said my\n subscription only lasted for three days and it was going to renew again and they were going to charge me\n $9.99 again! it's supposed to be $9.99 for one month with 1,000 credits. | paid $0.90 + $9.99 and | only got\n less than 20 videos for only 3 days. | want a refund!!!\n\n 681 people found this review helpful\n\n\n Did you find this helpful? Yes No\n\n\n\n\n = 1955Chevy406 :\n\n * September 1, 2025\n\n Total rip-off scammers. It's cool of them to give you some free credits to try out the app before buying, but\n you don't get a chance to use it all. | had over 80 credits left, and today when| tried to make a single image, it\n tells me | have NO CREDITS left. | checked, and sure enough everything | had left disappeared! Seems like\n everyone who has been sampling this app experienced the same thing. Al isn't even accurate when using\n images to create a picture. Waste of time \u00ae\n\n 541 people found this review helpful\n\n\n Did you find this helpful? Yes No\n\n\n\n\n See all reviews\n\n\n\n\n What\u2019s new\n\n Upload images or media, and Al generates diverse visual effects in one click, producing natural images and\n video content.\n Supports Omni Reference, aligning composition and subject for more consistent and controllable results.\n Supports motion control, generating cinematic camera movements such as push, pull, pan, and subject\n tracking to enhance rhythm and cinematic feel.\n Supports film development effects, restoring classic film colors and grain for a vintage visual style.\n\n\n\n\n F) Flag as inappropriate\n\n\n\n\n Google Play Kids & family\n\n\n Play Pass Parent Guide\n\n\n Play Points Family sharing\n\n\n Gift cards\n\n\n Redeem\n\n\n Refund policy\n\n\n\n\n Terms of Service Privacy About Google Play Developers Google Store = United States (English (United States))\n\n\n\n\nDocument title: Hailuo Al: Image&Video Maker - Apps on Google Play\nCapture URL: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ai.hailuo.video&hl=en_US\nCapture timestamp (UTC): Mon, 11 May 2026 14:52:44 GMT Page 3 of 3\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-11T02:00:04.284028-07:00","document_number":"54","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"031047798841","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-15T23:03:37.581089-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.729974-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-15","time_filed":"22:36:11","entry_number":54,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-15.002","pacer_sequence_number":222,"description":"DECLARATION of Sheng Jingyuan re Reply (Motion related), 53 filed by Defendant Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Schwartz, Robert) (Entered: 05/15/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464300421/","id":464300421,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479469241/","id":479469241,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/53/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-05-15T22:32:45.713527-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.651344-07:00","sha1":"aa934f26a8161a6b7f01b3ec0623f668543f7f55","page_count":21,"file_size":579680,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.53.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.53.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/479469241.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 1 of 21 Page ID\n #:1228\n\n\n\n 1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &\n SULLIVAN, LLP\n 2 Robert M. Schwartz (Bar No. 117166)\n 3 robertschwartz@quinnemanuel.com\n Daniel C. Posner (Bar No. 232009)\n 4 danposner@quinnemanuel.com\n Aaron Perahia (Bar No. 304554)\n 5 aaronperahia@quinnemanuel.com\n Moon Hee Lee (Bar No. 318020)\n 6 moonheelee@quinnemanuel.com\n 7 Bradley Kahn (Bar No. 364637)\n bradleykahn@quinnemanuel.com\n 8 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor\n Los Angeles, California 90017-2543\n 9 Telephone: (213) 443-3000\n10 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100\n11 Attorneys for Defendant Shanghai Xiyu\n Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd.\n12\n13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION\n15\n16 DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., a Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n Delaware corporation; UNIVERSAL\n17 CITY STUDIOS PRODUCTIONS DEFENDANT SHANGHAI XIYU\n18 LLLP, a Delaware limited liability JIZHI TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.\u2019S\n limited partnership; WARNER BROS. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION\n19 ENTERTAINMENT INC., a Delaware TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED.\n corporation; MARVEL R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n20 CHARACTERS, INC., a Delaware\n21 corporation; MVL FILM FINANCE Date: May 29, 2026\n LLC, a Delaware limited liability Time: 8:30 a.m.\n22 company; LUCASFILM LTD. LLC, a Place: Courtroom 6C\n California limited liability company; Judge: Hon. Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.\n23 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM\n CORPORATION, a Delaware Trial Date: July 12, 2027\n24 corporation; DC COMICS, a New York\n25 general partnership; THE CARTOON\n NETWORK, INC., a Delaware\n26 corporation; TURNER\n ENTERTAINMENT CO., a Delaware\n27 corporation; HANNA-BARBERA\n28 PRODUCTIONS, INC., a Delaware\n corporation; and DREAMWORKS\n Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 2 of 21 Page ID\n #:1229\n\n\n\n 1 ANIMATION L.L.C., a Delaware\n limited liability company,\n 2\n 3 Plaintiffs,\n\n 4 vs.\n 5 MINIMAX, a Chinese company;\n SHANGHAI XIYU JIZHI\n 6 TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., a Chinese\n 7 limited company; NANONOBLE PTE.\n LTD., a Singaporean private limited\n 8 company and DOES 1 through 20,\n inclusive,\n 9\n10 Defendants.\n\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 3 of 21 Page ID\n #:1230\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n Page\n 2\n INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1\n 3\n ARGUMENT............................................................................................................2\n 4\n I. THE COURT MUST EVALUATE SXJT\u2019S FORUM CONTACTS,\n 5 NOT CONTACTS ATTRIBUTED TO \u201cMINIMAX\u201d ....................................2\n 6 II. SXJT\u2019S CONDUCT DOES NOT SHOW PURPOSEFUL DIRECTION ........4\n 7 A. SXJT\u2019s Trademark Filings Do Not Establish Express Aiming. .............4\n 8 B. The Studios\u2019 Other Express Aiming Arguments Fail. ...........................6\n 9 C. \u201cForeseeable Harm\u201d Does Not Substitute for Express Aiming. ........... 10\n10 III. THE STUDIOS\u2019 COPYRIGHT CLAIMS DO NOT ARISE FROM OR\n RELATE TO SXJT\u2019S TRADEMARK FILINGS .......................................... 11\n11\n IV. EXERCISING JURISDICTION WOULD BE UNREASONABLE ............. 12\n12\n V. THE COURT SHOULD DENY JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY ............ 13\n13\n CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 13\n14\n CERTIFICATE OF L.R. 11-6.2 COMPLIANCE RE: WORD COUNT ................. 15\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n i Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 4 of 21 Page ID\n #:1231\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n 2 Page\n 3 Cases\n 4 Aether, LLC v. Unt Holdings, OU,\n 2022 WL 16554691 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2022) ................................................. 11\n 5\n 6 Alhathloul v. DarkMatter Group,\n 795 F. Supp. 3d 1253 (D. Or. 2025) ...................................................................6\n 7\n Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court,\n 8\n 480 U.S. 102 (1987) ......................................................................................... 12\n 9\n Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem International, Inc.,\n10 874 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2017) ............................................................................4\n11\n Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd.,\n12 11 F.4th 972 (9th Cir. 2021) ........................................................................... 5, 8\n13 In re Baby Food Products Liability Litigation,\n14 2025 WL 986959 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2025) .................................................... 2, 7\n15 Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. v. Joyfun Inc Co.,\n16 2020 WL 1972284 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020) ......................................................9\n\n17 Boschetto v. Hansing,\n 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 13\n18\n19 Briskin v. Shopify, Inc.,\n 135 F.4th 739 (9th Cir. 2025) ........................................................................... 12\n20\n Climax Portable Machhine Tools, Inc. v. Trawema GmbH,\n21 2020 WL 1304487 (D. Or. Mar. 19, 2020) .........................................................6\n22\n Desire, LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc.,\n23 986 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2021) ............................................................................6\n24 DPR Construction, Inc. v. Anka (Cortez Hill) LLC,\n25 2008 WL 11508492 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008) ..................................................4\n26 EcoDisc Technology AG v. DVD Format/Logo Licensing Corp.,\n27 711 F. Supp. 2d 1074 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ............................................................ 13\n\n28\n\n ii Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 5 of 21 Page ID\n #:1232\n\n\n\n 1 Expensify, Inc. v. Swappoint AG,\n 2023 WL 6323103 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2023) ................................................. 11\n 2\n 3 Facebook, Inc. v. Sahinturk,\n 2022 WL 1304471 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2022) ......................................................6\n 4\n Goes International, AB v. Dodur Ltd.,\n 5\n 2015 WL 5043296 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2015) ...................................................9\n 6\n Intent Drivers, Inc. v. Primesolarquotes,\n 7 2022 WL 17080203 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2022) .................................................. 10\n 8\n Jekyll Island-State Park Auth. v. Polygroup Macau Ltd.,\n 9 140 F.4th 1304 (11th Cir. 2025) ....................................................................... 11\n10 Lang Van, Inc. v. VNG Corp.,\n11 40 F.4th 1034 (9th Cir. 2022) ......................................................................... 5, 9\n12 LHF Products Inc. v. Doe 1,\n13 736 F. App\u2019x 688 (9th Cir. 2018) .......................................................................6\n\n14 LTN Media LLC v. Bihaco Communication Trading & Services Corp.,\n 2025 WL 3190869 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2025) ...................................................5\n15\n16 Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc.,\n 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................8\n17\n Mewawalla v. Middleman,\n18 601 F. Supp. 3d 574 (N.D. Cal. 2022) .............................................................. 10\n19\n Monster Cable Products, Inc. v. Euroflex S.R.L.,\n20 642 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ............................................................ 12\n21 Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,\n22 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 12\n23 Terracom v. Valley National Bank,\n24 49 F.3d 555 (9th Cir. 1995) .............................................................................. 13\n\n25 Walden v. Fiore,\n 571 U.S. 277 (2014) ....................................................................................... 2, 7\n26\n27 Will Co., Ltd. v. Lee,\n 47 F.4th 917 (9th Cir. 2022) ......................................................................... 8, 10\n28\n\n iii Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 6 of 21 Page ID\n #:1233\n\n\n\n 1 X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate Ltd.,\n 724 F. Supp. 3d 921 (N.D. Cal. 2024) ................................................................6\n 2\n 3 Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd.,\n 62 F.4th 496 (9th Cir. 2023) ............................................................................. 11\n 4\n Statutes\n 5\n 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1055................................................................................................. 3, 5\n 6\n 7 17 U.S.C. \u00a7 504 .................................................................................................. 6, 7\n 8\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n iv Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 7 of 21 Page ID\n #:1234\n\n\n\n 1 INTRODUCTION\n 2 The Court should dismiss SXJT for lack of personal jurisdiction. It is\n 3 undisputed that SXJT has no offices, no servers, no assets, and no revenue in the\n 4 U.S. It does not operate the Hailuo AI tool in the U.S. Nanonoble\u2014a separate\n 5 entity, already a Defendant in this case\u2014operates the service, signed the Terms of\n 6 Service, distributes the Hailuo AI app through the U.S. app stores, and processes\n 7 U.S. payments. The only U.S.-directed acts that the Studios tie to SXJT by name\n 8 are trademark filings for the mark \u201cMiniMax.\u201d That is not enough. A trademark\n 9 filing standing alone does not establish purposeful direction, and in any event the\n10 Studios\u2019 copyright claims neither arise from nor relate to one. The Xue Declaration\n11 confirms each of those facts under oath. The Studios offer no contrary evidence.\n12 The Studios\u2019 opposition rests on a single theory: They treat every act done\n13 under the \u201cMiniMax\u201d brand as an act of SXJT. That fails. \u201cMiniMax\u201d is a brand\n14 used across the MiniMax Group. Even Nanonoble displays the MiniMax logo on\n15 Hailuo AI outputs and throughout the U.S.-facing platform. But due process\n16 requires the Court to evaluate SXJT\u2019s contacts on their own\u2014not under a collective\n17 brand label.\n18 First, a shared brand does not erase the line between affiliated companies.\n19 Multiple MiniMax Group entities use the \u201cMiniMax\u201d brand, and Nanonoble itself\n20 uses it on the U.S.-facing service. None of that makes SXJT the actor behind\n21 Nanonoble\u2019s U.S. operations.\n22 Second, a trademark filing standing alone does not establish purposeful\n23 direction. The Ninth Circuit has never so held. The Studios\u2019 lead authority is dicta\n24 in a footnote. The Studios\u2019 other cases each turned on the defendant\u2019s own U.S.-\n25 facing channels: its own website, its own app, its own contracts, its own ads. SXJT\n26 operates none in the U.S.\n27\n28\n\n 1 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 8 of 21 Page ID\n #:1235\n\n\n\n 1 Third, even if the trademark filings supplied minimum contacts, the Studios\u2019\n 2 copyright claims neither arise from nor relate to them. Every trademark-jurisdiction\n 3 case that the Studios cite involved a trademark claim\u2014not something unrelated.\n 4 Fourth, exercising jurisdiction over SXJT would be unreasonable. SXJT\n 5 operates exclusively in China. Nanonoble is already a Defendant in this case,\n 6 making the remaining reasonableness factors neutral at best.\n 7 Fifth, the Studios identify no controverted fact that jurisdictional discovery\n 8 could resolve. They offer only a hunch against sworn evidence. That is not enough.\n 9 ARGUMENT\n10 I. THE COURT MUST EVALUATE SXJT\u2019S FORUM CONTACTS, NOT\n11 CONTACTS ATTRIBUTED TO \u201cMINIMAX\u201d\n12 The Studios disregard corporate structure by equating the MiniMax brand\n13 with SXJT. Due process restricts jurisdiction to \u201ccontacts that the \u2018defendant\n14 himself\u2019 creates with the forum State.\u201d Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014).\n15 SXJT challenged the Studios\u2019 conclusory allegations seeking to impute Nanonoble\u2019s\n16 contacts to SXJT. Mot. 7-8 (citing Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 33-34). The Studios do not defend\n17 them. See generally Opp. 4-6. Instead, they argue that \u201cMiniMax\u201d is SXJT\u2019s\n18 fictitious business name, so that all acts conducted under the \u201cMiniMax\u201d brand are\n19 SXJT\u2019s conduct. Opp. 4-6. This argument conflates a group brand with a separate\n20 entity.\n21 \u201cMiniMax\u201d is a brand name used for AI products and services across the\n22 MiniMax Group. Xue Decl. \u00b6 7. The MiniMax platform encompasses products\n23 beyond Hailuo AI, including LLMs and speech generation models. Id. \u00b6 5. And\n24 Nanonoble, not SXJT, operates Hailuo AI in the U.S. Id. \u00b6 6. Shared branding does\n25 not establish jurisdiction over an affiliate that lacks forum contacts. In re Baby\n26 Food Prods. Liab. Litig., 2025 WL 986959, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2025) (holding\n27 that shared branding does not establish personal jurisdiction over a related entity).\n28 Each of the Studios\u2019 other arguments fails.\n\n 2 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 9 of 21 Page ID\n #:1236\n\n\n\n 1 First, the Studios cannot use the Statement of Use to show that SXJT operates\n 2 in the U.S. They argue that it confirms that \u201cMiniMax is the business name that\n 3 SXJT [uses] in connection with the infringing Hailuo AI service.\u201d Opp. 5. But the\n 4 Statement of Use is a form that allows an applicant to file based on use by \u201cthe\n 5 applicant\u201d or \u201cthe applicant\u2019s related company, licensee, or predecessor in interest.\u201d\n 6 Greene Decl., Ex. 1 at 10. Nanonoble\u2019s use of the MiniMax brand in the U.S.\n 7 satisfies this requirement. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1055.\n 8 The Studios insert \u201c[i.e., SXJT\u2019s]\u201d after the Statement of Use\u2019s reference to\n 9 \u201cthe client\u2019s website.\u201d Opp. 5. But the form does not say \u201cSXJT\u2019s website.\u201d\n10 Greene Decl., Ex. 1 at 10. And SXJT does not own or control minimax.io or\n11 hailuoai.video. Xue Decl. \u00b6 13. The Studios also point to \u201c\u00a9 2026 MiniMax\u201d as\n12 proof that SXJT seeks U.S. copyright protection. Opp. 5. But a copyright notice is\n13 not a legal requirement for protection; the notice confers no rights. And one bearing\n14 a group brand name does not identify which entity holds the copyright.\n15 Second, the Studios misstate SXJT\u2019s motion as conceding that all MiniMax-\n16 branded conduct is SXJT\u2019s. Opp. 6. The Studios alleged that the \u201cMiniMax\u201d\n17 defendant is either \u201ca privately held Chinese company\u201d or \u201ca subsidiary, division, or\n18 d/b/a of defendant [SXJT].\u201d Compl. \u00b6 32. SXJT also assumed, for argument\u2019s sake,\n19 that if \u201cMiniMax\u201d were SXJT\u2019s fictitious business name, as the Studios alternatively\n20 alleged, then the \u201cMiniMax\u201d defendant could not face jurisdiction as an independent\n21 entity and should be dismissed (and was ultimately dismissed). Mot. 4-5. That\n22 assumption did not concede that every act by every entity using the MiniMax brand\n23 counts as SXJT\u2019s act. The Studios conflate the named \u201cMiniMax\u201d defendant with\n24 the MiniMax brand. Other MiniMax Group entities use that brand, but none\n25 operates as SXJT\u2019s fictitious business name. See Xue Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 3-4, 7.\n26 Third, the Studios cannot reach SXJT by process of elimination. Opp. 6. The\n27 Studios argue that SXJT is \u201cnecessarily\u201d responsible for any MiniMax-branded\n28 activity because Nanonoble \u201ccontracts in its own name,\u201d \u201cfiles trademarks in its\n\n 3 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 10 of 21 Page ID\n #:1237\n\n\n\n 1 own name,\u201d and appears on U.S. app stores under its own name. Id. The premise is\n 2 wrong. Nanonoble also operates under the MiniMax brand\u2014it distributes the\n 3 Hailuo AI tool and displays the MiniMax mark throughout the platform. See Xue\n 4 Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 6-7. Nanonoble\u2019s use of its own name for contracting and trademark\n 5 filings does not make SXJT the default actor for everything bearing the MiniMax\n 6 label.\n 7 Fourth, the Studios\u2019 fictitious-name theory fails. Opp. 5-6. The fictitious-\n 8 name doctrine holds entities accountable for business they conduct under an alias.\n 9 DPR Constr., Inc. v. Anka (Cortez Hill) LLC, 2008 WL 11508492, at *3, 6 (S.D.\n10 Cal. Mar. 27, 2008) (Opp. 5-6) (exercising jurisdiction where two Australian\n11 defendants\u2014the only entities behind the \u201cAPG\u201d alias\u2014maintained offices in\n12 California, managed three real estate projects there, and negotiated the contracts at\n13 issue in person). Here, multiple entities under the MiniMax Group umbrella use the\n14 MiniMax mark. Xue Decl. \u00b6 7. Unlike the DPR defendants, SXJT maintains no\n15 offices, employees, or assets in the U.S. and does not sell, market, or advertise here.\n16 Xue Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 8-9. Nanonoble performed the U.S.-facing activities that the Studios\n17 attribute to \u201cMiniMax.\u201d\n18 II. SXJT\u2019S CONDUCT DOES NOT SHOW PURPOSEFUL DIRECTION\n19 The Studios fail to show that SXJT directed any conduct at the U.S.\n20 Purposeful direction requires: (1) an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the\n21 forum, and (3) causing harm that the defendant knew was likely to be suffered there.\n22 Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int\u2019l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2017). The\n23 only SXJT conduct that the Studios identify by name are U.S. trademark filings.\n24 The rest belongs to another entity or rests on speculation.\n25 A. SXJT\u2019s Trademark Filings Do Not Establish Express Aiming.\n26 The Ninth Circuit has never held that trademark filings alone establish\n27 express aiming. The Studios argue that trademark applications are \u201ccompelling\n28 evidence\u201d of purposeful direction. Opp. 8. But the dictum on which they rely does\n\n 4 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 11 of 21 Page ID\n #:1238\n\n\n\n 1 not support their arguments. Id. (citing Ayla, LLC v. Alya Skin Pty. Ltd., 11 F.4th\n 2 972 (9th Cir. 2021)). A footnote in Ayla stated that a trademark application \u201cmight\n 3 be considered compelling evidence.\u201d Ayla, 11 F.4th at 982 n.4. But the court never\n 4 applied that reasoning because the defendant withdrew the trademark application.\n 5 Id. Jurisdiction in Ayla instead turned on extensive U.S. contacts that bear no\n 6 resemblance to SXJT here: a U.S. fulfillment center in Idaho, advertising directed at\n 7 \u201cUSA BABES,\u201d about ten percent of total sales to the U.S., and claims of FDA\n 8 approval. Id. at 980-83.\n 9 The Studios argue that post-Ayla caselaw confirms that trademark filings\n10 alone satisfy express aiming. Opp. 9-10. But their lead authority found express\n11 aiming only because the defendant went beyond registration to send DMCA\n12 takedown notices, file counter-notifications consenting to U.S. jurisdiction, and\n13 enforce its registrations against third parties. LTN Media LLC v. Bihaco Commc\u2019n\n14 Trading & Servs. Corp., 2025 WL 3190869, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2025) (Opp.\n15 9-10) (requiring \u201cconduct directly targeting the forum\u201d beyond the trademark\n16 registration itself). In another cited case, the defendant filed a trademark\n17 application, but also released its app in the U.S., contracted with U.S. studios,\n18 uploaded the plaintiff\u2019s copyrighted songs, and refused to geoblock U.S. users while\n19 selectively blocking content from certain U.S. studios. Lang Van, Inc. v. VNG\n20 Corp., 40 F.4th 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2022) (Opp. 7-8). SXJT did none of these\n21 things. It filed trademark applications. Nanonoble\u2014not SXJT\u2014released the app,\n22 contracted with U.S. platforms, and operated the U.S.-facing service.\n23 The Statement of Use does not supply the missing \u201csomething more.\u201d The\n24 law allows trademark applicants to file based on use by related companies,\n25 licensees, or predecessors in interest. 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1055. SXJT does not admit\n26 through the Statement of Use that it\u2014as opposed to one of its related companies,\n27 licensees, or predecessors in interest\u2014operates a U.S. business. Nanonoble is such\n28 a related company that operates a U.S. business.\n\n 5 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 12 of 21 Page ID\n #:1239\n\n\n\n 1 B. The Studios\u2019 Other Express Aiming Arguments Fail.\n 2 None of the other conduct that the Studios allege supports jurisdiction. The\n 3 Studios rely on conduct misattributed to SXJT, third-party activity, or speculation.\n 4 First, the Studios argue that SXJT developed and trained the Hailuo AI model\n 5 by copying the Studios\u2019 works. Opp. 11. They tie development and training to the\n 6 U.S. by arguing that it is \u201chighly likely\u201d that SXJT scraped U.S. websites. Id. That\n 7 is speculation, not a factual averment. And each of the Studios\u2019 cited scraping cases\n 8 involved a defendant that deliberately targeted an identified computer belonging to\n 9 an identified plaintiff in a known forum\u2014not generalized data collection from\n10 unspecified Internet sources. See Opp. 7, 11 (citing Alhathloul v. DarkMatter Grp.,\n11 795 F. Supp. 3d 1253, 1270-71 (D. Or. 2025) (finding jurisdiction based on\n12 documented targeting of the plaintiff\u2019s iPhone in the forum); Facebook, Inc. v.\n13 Sahinturk, 2022 WL 1304471, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2022) (finding jurisdiction\n14 based on automated scraping commands directed at the plaintiff\u2019s California\n15 servers); Climax Portable Mach. Tools, Inc. v. Trawema GmbH, 2020 WL 1304487,\n16 at *7 (D. Or. Mar. 19, 2020) (finding jurisdiction based on undisputed access to the\n17 plaintiff\u2019s Oregon server)). The Studios identify nothing comparable. Ingesting\n18 data from unspecified Internet sources does not \u201cexpressly aim\u201d at a particular\n19 forum. See, e.g., X Corp. v. Ctr. for Countering Digital Hate Ltd., 724 F. Supp. 3d\n20 921, 940 (N.D. Cal. 2024) (\u201cThe mere location of servers cannot establish personal\n21 jurisdiction.\u201d) (citing cases).\n22 Second, the Studios argue that SXJT is \u201cjointly responsible\u201d for making the\n23 Hailuo AI tool available in the U.S. because SXJT developed the underlying AI\n24 model and because the Hailuo AI tool\u2019s outputs bear the MiniMax logo. Opp. 12.\n25 The cases the Studios cite for that proposition address statutory damages under 17\n26 U.S.C. \u00a7 504(c)(1), not personal jurisdiction. See Opp. 12 (citing Desire, LLC v.\n27 Manna Textiles, Inc., 986 F.3d 1253, 1263 (9th Cir. 2021) (apportioning statutory\n28 damages between upstream and downstream infringers under \u00a7 504(c)(1)); LHF\n\n 6 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 13 of 21 Page ID\n #:1240\n\n\n\n 1 Prods. Inc. v. Doe 1, 736 F. App\u2019x 688, 690-91 (9th Cir. 2018) (applying \u00a7\n 2 504(c)(1) to joint infringers of the same work)). Neither holds that joint-tortfeasor\n 3 liability creates minimum contacts. Due process requires that the jurisdictional\n 4 relationship \u201carise out of contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum\n 5 State.\u201d Walden, 571 U.S. at 284 (citation omitted).\n 6 The Studios\u2019 factual predicates fare no better. SXJT develops AI models in\n 7 Shanghai. Xue Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 5, 9. Model training in China is research and development\n 8 performed abroad. It is not conduct expressly aimed at the U.S. Nanonoble\n 9 operates the platform, generates the outputs, applies the MiniMax logo, and\n10 processes payments. Id. \u00b6 6. Nanonoble\u2019s distribution of the model to U.S.\n11 consumers is Nanonoble\u2019s forum contact alone. A shared brand on a product\n12 distributed by one subsidiary does not establish that another subsidiary worked \u201cin\n13 concert\u201d with the distributor. Baby Food, 2025 WL 986959, at *6 (holding that\n14 \u201cshared branding and marketing materials \u2026 do not suffice to establish personal\n15 jurisdiction\u201d).\n16 Third, the Studios argue that SXJT distributes AI models to U.S. consumers\n17 through APIs on third-party websites because the Statement of Use specimen\n18 \u201cconfirms that [SXJT] is behind MiniMax\u2019s API offerings.\u201d Opp. 13. That theory\n19 rests on the same attribution error. The specimen displays an API pricing page on\n20 platform.minimax.io. Greene Decl., Ex. 1 at 6, 8. The press release the Studios cite\n21 appears on minimax.io. Id., Ex. 9 at 2. SXJT does not own or control either\n22 website. Xue Decl. \u00b6 13. A third party\u2019s independent decision to distribute an\n23 SXJT-developed model in the U.S. is not SXJT\u2019s forum-directed conduct. See\n24 Walden, 571 U.S. at 284.\n25 Fourth, every \u201cadvertising\u201d and \u201cconference\u201d contact that the Studios\n26 identify involves a channel SXJT does not control. They point to social media posts\n27 featuring Hailuo AI and the Studios\u2019 characters, news stories about four U.S.\n28 conferences on minimax.io, and a \u201cSan Francisco\u201d location field on MiniMax-\n\n 7 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 14 of 21 Page ID\n #:1241\n\n\n\n 1 branded X accounts. Opp. 14. The social media accounts are listed as \u201cHailuoAI\n 2 (MiniMax)\u201d\u2014not \u201cHailuoAI (SXJT).\u201d Compl. \u00b6 169; Greene Decl., Exs. 4-7. The\n 3 event organizers reference the MiniMax brand, not SXJT. Greene Decl., Exs. 18-\n 4 21. SXJT does not manage social media accounts directed at U.S. consumers, does\n 5 not advertise in the U.S., does not host or fund U.S. events, and has no presence in\n 6 San Francisco or anywhere else in the U.S. Xue Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 6, 8-9, 13-14. Nanonoble\n 7 manages all customer-facing activity for Hailuo AI in the U.S. Id. \u00b6 6.\n 8 The Studios\u2019 cases all involved a defendant itself targeting U.S. consumers\n 9 through its own channels. Opp. 14 (citing Will Co., Ltd. v. Lee, 47 F.4th 917, 924-\n10 25 (9th Cir. 2022) (finding express aiming where the defendant operated its own\n11 U.S.-targeted website using U.S.-based servers and CDN services); Ayla, 11 F.4th at\n12 980-81 (finding the defendant\u2019s own ads addressed to \u201cUSA BABES\u201d reinforced\n13 purposeful direction); Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 647 F.3d 1218,\n14 1229-30 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding express aiming where the defendant exploited the\n15 California market through its own website)). The Studios do not allege that SXJT\n16 did any of these things.\n17 Fifth, the Studios argue that conduct SXJT attributes to Nanonoble is in fact\n18 SXJT\u2019s. Opp. 14-15. SXJT showed that Google Play identifies \u201cNANONOBLE\n19 PTE. LTD.\u201d as the registered developer, with a Singapore address. Mot. 6-7; Xue\n20 Decl. \u00b6 11. The Studios dispute this. They claim that Google \u201cactually identifies\n21 MiniMax AI (i.e., SXJT) as the developer with no mention of Nanonoble.\u201d Opp. 15.\n22 That is incorrect. The Google Play Store page that the Studios cite lists\n23 \u201cNANONOBLE PTE. LTD.\u201d as the registered developer under the \u201cApp support\u201d\n24 tab, as shown below:\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n 8 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 15 of 21 Page ID\n #:1242\n\n\n\n 1\n 2\n 3\n 4\n 5\n 6\n 7\n 8\n 9\n10\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15 Declaration of Sheng Jingyuan filed May 15, 2026 (\u201cSheng Decl.\u201d), Ex. A.\n16 The \u201cMiniMax AI\u201d name on the Google Play Store is a brand display name\n17 that appears alongside Nanonoble as the registered developer. Sheng Decl., Ex. A.\n18 The listing does not mention SXJT. Id. SXJT did not upload, distribute, or manage\n19 the Hailuo AI app. Xue Decl. \u00b6 6.\n20 The Studios\u2019 cited app-store cases each involved a defendant that itself\n21 uploaded and distributed the infringing content. Opp. 15 (citing Lang Van, 40 F.4th\n22 at 1042 (finding purposeful direction where the defendant itself released its music\n23 app on the App Store and Google Play, chose not to geoblock U.S. users, and\n24 contracted with U.S. businesses); Goes Int\u2019l, AB v. Dodur Ltd., 2015 WL 5043296,\n25 at *2, 9-10 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2015) (finding express aiming where the defendant\n26 was the listed developer, uploaded infringing games to the App Store 33 times, and\n27 selected the U.S. as a distribution market); Blizzard Ent., Inc. v. Joyfun Inc Co.,\n28 2020 WL 1972284, at *1-2, 5-6 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020) (finding purposeful\n\n 9 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 16 of 21 Page ID\n #:1243\n\n\n\n 1 availment where the defendants uploaded the infringing game to Google Play and\n 2 the Microsoft Store, sold virtual currency to U.S. customers, and advertised on\n 3 Facebook)). Unlike those cases, Nanonoble uploaded Hailuo AI to Google Play,\n 4 entered the developer agreements, and manages the app\u2019s distribution. SXJT did\n 5 none of this.\n 6 The Studios argue that Nanonoble\u2019s Terms of Service bind SXJT through a\n 7 generic \u201caffiliates\u201d clause. Opp. 15. SXJT is not a party to those terms. Xue Decl.\n 8 \u00b6 10. The Terms identify only \u201cNanonoble Pte. Ltd.\u201d as the contracting party. Xue\n 9 Decl., Ex. A. A forum-selection clause does not bind a non-signatory that did not\n10 consent to jurisdiction. Mewawalla v. Middleman, 601 F. Supp. 3d 574, 589-90\n11 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (declining to enforce a forum-selection clause against a non-\n12 signatory because it \u201cdid not consent to the jurisdiction of California courts\u201d). The\n13 Studios\u2019 sole supporting case confirms the deficiency. See Opp. 15 (citing Intent\n14 Drivers, Inc. v. Primesolarquotes, 2022 WL 17080203, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4,\n15 2022) (finding purposeful availment where the defendant itself drafted and posted\n16 terms of use on its own website, selecting California law, requiring all claims to be\n17 resolved in California courts, and directing a privacy notice at California residents)).\n18 SXJT did not draft Nanonoble\u2019s terms, did not post them on its own website, and\n19 did not select California as a forum.\n20 C. \u201cForeseeable Harm\u201d Does Not Substitute for Express Aiming.\n21 The Studios argue that SXJT knew harm was likely because the Studios own\n22 well-known movies and television franchises and MiniMax-branded advertising\n23 features the Studios\u2019 characters. Opp. 16-17. But foreseeable harm is not a\n24 substitute for express aiming. The Studios\u2019 cited case requires a defendant\u2019s forum-\n25 directed conduct: actively appealing to a U.S. audience, knowing many U.S. users\n26 view the site, and receiving notice of infringing content. Will Co., 47 F.4th at 927.\n27 Nanonoble, not SXJT, manages all customer-facing activity for the Hailuo AI tool in\n28\n\n 10 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 17 of 21 Page ID\n #:1244\n\n\n\n 1 the U.S. Xue Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 6, 13. The Studios identify no SXJT conduct that satisfies\n 2 the test.\n 3 III. THE STUDIOS\u2019 COPYRIGHT CLAIMS DO NOT ARISE FROM OR\n 4 RELATE TO SXJT\u2019S TRADEMARK FILINGS\n 5 Even if the trademark filings showed purposeful direction, the Studios\u2019\n 6 copyright claims bear no connection to them. Specific jurisdiction requires that the\n 7 claims \u201carise from\u201d the defendant\u2019s forum contacts\u2014meaning those contacts are a\n 8 but-for cause of the injury\u2014or \u201crelate to\u201d them\u2014meaning \u201csimilar injuries will tend\n 9 to be caused by those contacts\u201d or that the defendant \u201cshould have foreseen the risk\n10 that its contacts might cause injuries like that of the plaintiff.\u201d Yamashita v. LG\n11 Chem, Ltd., 62 F.4th 496, 504-05 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). The Studios\n12 satisfy neither standard.\n13 The Studios\u2019 claims do not \u201carise out of\u201d SXJT\u2019s trademark filings. The\n14 Studios allege that the Hailuo AI tool reproduces copyrighted characters when\n15 subscribers submit text prompts. Compl. \u00b6\u00b6 1, 6-8, 116-167. SXJT\u2019s trademark\n16 filings did not cause those reproductions. The Studios would suffer the same\n17 alleged injuries if SXJT had never filed a single trademark application.\n18 Nor do the claims \u201crelate to\u201d SXJT\u2019s trademark filings. A trademark\n19 application protects a brand name. It does not copy, reproduce, distribute, or display\n20 copyrighted works. Copyright infringement through AI-generated outputs is not the\n21 type of injury that \u201ctend[s] to be caused by\u201d a trademark filing. Yamashita, 62 F.4th\n22 at 505.\n23 The Studios\u2019 cited cases expose this gap. Every trademark-jurisdiction case\n24 that the Studios cite involved claims about a trademark\u2014infringement, unfair\n25 competition, or cancellation. See Opp. 8-10 (citing Jekyll Island-State Park Auth. v.\n26 Polygroup Macau Ltd., 140 F.4th 1304, 1311-14 (11th Cir. 2025) (trademark\n27 infringement claims); Expensify, Inc. v. Swappoint AG, 2023 WL 6323103, at *1\n28 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2023) (declaratory judgment of noninfringement); Aether, LLC\n\n 11 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 18 of 21 Page ID\n #:1245\n\n\n\n 1 v. Unt Holdings, OU, 2022 WL 16554691, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2022)\n 2 (trademark infringement and related claims); Monster Cable Prods., Inc. v. Euroflex\n 3 S.R.L., 642 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1005, 1010 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (trademark dispute)). In\n 4 each, the trademark filing both established purposeful direction and gave rise to the\n 5 claims. That alignment is absent here. The Studios do not sue to cancel the\n 6 MiniMax mark. They do not allege that SXJT\u2019s trademark filings infringed their\n 7 copyrights. The relatedness prong independently bars jurisdiction.\n 8 IV. EXERCISING JURISDICTION WOULD BE UNREASONABLE\n 9 The burden to show that jurisdiction is unreasonable shifts to SXJT only after\n10 the Studios satisfy the first two prongs. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,\n11 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring plaintiff to first show \u201cpurposeful\n12 availment\u201d and nexus between the claims and forum contacts). The Studios satisfy\n13 neither. They argue that SXJT waived any reasonableness argument by not raising\n14 it in its opening motion. Opp. 18 n.5. But SXJT had no obligation to address a\n15 burden that never shifted to it. Neither of the Studios\u2019 cited cases involved the\n16 personal jurisdiction burden-shifting framework, and neither holds that a defendant\n17 waives an argument it had no burden to raise in the first instance. See id.\n18 Even if the burden shifted, the reasonableness factors favor SXJT or are\n19 neutral. See Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F.4th 739, 761 (9th Cir. 2025) (listing\n20 seven factors governing reasonableness). SXJT has no offices, employees, assets, or\n21 revenue in the U.S. and does not market or sell any product to U.S. consumers. Xue\n22 Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 8-9. Compelling a Chinese company with no U.S. presence to defend\n23 copyright claims in California imposes a substantial burden. See Asahi Metal Indus.\n24 Co. v. Superior Ct., 480 U.S. 102, 114 (1987) (recognizing \u201cunique burdens placed\n25 upon one who must defend oneself in a foreign legal system\u201d). The remaining\n26 factors are neutral at best: the Studios can obtain full relief against Nanonoble,\n27 which operates the Hailuo AI service in the U.S., processes payments, and\n28 distributes outputs to U.S. subscribers. Xue Decl. \u00b6 6. The forum\u2019s interest, judicial\n\n 12 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 19 of 21 Page ID\n #:1246\n\n\n\n 1 efficiency, and the Studios\u2019 interest in convenient relief are all satisfied without\n 2 SXJT.\n 3 V. THE COURT SHOULD DENY JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY\n 4 Jurisdictional discovery is not warranted where the request rests on \u201clittle\n 5 more than a hunch that it might yield jurisdictionally relevant facts.\u201d Boschetto v.\n 6 Hansing, 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008). Nor is it warranted where the\n 7 plaintiff\u2019s claim of jurisdiction is \u201cattenuated and based on bare allegations in the\n 8 face of specific denials made by defendants.\u201d Terracom v. Valley Nat\u2019l Bank, 49\n 9 F.3d 555, 562 (9th Cir. 1995). Both cases the Studios cite for jurisdictional\n10 discovery denied the request. See Opp. 19 (citing Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1020;\n11 EcoDisc Tech. AG v. DVD Format/Logo Licensing Corp., 711 F. Supp. 2d 1074,\n12 1093 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (denying discovery where the plaintiff failed to show how\n13 additional discovery would contradict essential facts in the defendant\u2019s\n14 declaration)).\n15 The Studios fail the same standards. The Xue Declaration\u2014signed under\n16 penalty of perjury and supported by corporate records\u2014confirms that SXJT has no\n17 U.S. presence, does not operate Hailuo AI or its social media accounts, does not\n18 process U.S. payments, and does not control Nanonoble. Xue Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 6, 8-16,\n19 Exs. A-D. The Studios do not identify a single fact they expect discovery to\n20 uncover. They say only that they \u201canticipate\u201d that discovery into \u201ccorporate\n21 structure and alter ego relationships\u201d will \u201cfurther confirm\u201d jurisdiction. Opp. 19.\n22 That is a hunch against sworn evidence. Boschetto, 539 F.3d at 1020.\n23 CONCLUSION\n24 The Court should dismiss Defendant SXJT for lack of personal jurisdiction.\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n 13 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 20 of 21 Page ID\n #:1247\n\n\n\n 1 Dated: May 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n 2 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART\n 3 & SULLIVAN, LLP\n Robert M. Schwartz\n 4 Daniel C. Posner\n 5 Aaron Perahia\n Moon Hee Lee\n 6 Bradley Kahn\n 7\n 8\n By: _________________________\n 9\n Robert M. Schwartz\n10 Attorneys for Defendant SXJT\n11\n12\n13\n14\n15\n16\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n 14 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 53 Filed 05/15/26 Page 21 of 21 Page ID\n #:1248\n\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF L.R. 11-6.2 COMPLIANCE RE: WORD COUNT\n 2 The undersigned, counsel of record for SXJT, certifies that this brief contains\n 3 3,961 words, which complies with the word limit of the Court\u2019s September 23, 2025\n 4 Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. (Dkt.\n 5 No. 11).\n 6\n 7 Dated: May 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n 8 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART\n 9 & SULLIVAN, LLP\n Robert M. Schwartz\n10 Daniel C. Posner\n11 Aaron Perahia\n Moon Hee Lee\n12 Bradley Kahn\n13\n14\n By: _________________________\n15\n Robert M. Schwartz\n16 Attorneys for Defendant SXJT\n17\n18\n19\n20\n21\n22\n23\n24\n25\n26\n27\n28\n\n 15 Case No. 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E\n SXJT\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-18T06:44:10.251632-07:00","document_number":"53","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047798819","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply (Motion related)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-15T22:32:45.679397-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.610330-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-15","time_filed":"22:28:35","entry_number":53,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":219,"description":"REPLY in Support of NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Defendants Minimax and Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd. Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2); Memorandum of Points And Authorities 34 filed by Defendant Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd.. (Schwartz, Robert) (Entered: 05/15/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463877559/","id":463877559,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479036963/","id":479036963,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-05-13T08:04:31.819342-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-13T08:04:31.825258-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Filing Transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-13T08:04:31.805808-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-13T08:04:31.805817-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-13","time_filed":"07:47:37","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463874990/","id":463874990,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479034394/","id":479034394,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/52/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-05-13T07:59:52.889765-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.565308-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"52","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Filing Transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-13T07:59:52.857159-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.534132-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-13","time_filed":null,"entry_number":52,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-13.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT filed for proceedings 05/01/2026 9:00 a.m. re Transcript 51 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (dac) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 05/13/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463874989/","id":463874989,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479034393/","id":479034393,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/51/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-05-13T07:59:52.800632-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.469396-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"51","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047763751","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript (CV)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-13T07:59:52.728478-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.394659-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-13","time_filed":"07:46:51","entry_number":51,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":214,"description":"TRANSCRIPT for proceedings held on 05/01/2026 9:00 a.m.. Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder: EXCEPTIONAL REPORTING SERVICES, INC., phone number 361-949-2988. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Electronic Court Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Notice of Intent to Redact due within 7 days of this date. Redaction Request due 6/3/2026. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/15/2026. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/11/2026. (dac) (Entered: 05/13/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463648069/","id":463648069,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478800155/","id":478800155,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/50/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-05-11T12:01:53.410395-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.317652-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"50","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047743296","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Order Form (G-120)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-11T12:01:53.387336-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.288736-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-11","time_filed":"11:50:49","entry_number":50,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":212,"description":"TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Plaintiffs DC Comics, Disney Enterprises, Inc., Dreamworks Animation L.L.C., Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, MVL Film Finance LLC, Marvel Characters, Inc, The Cartoon Network, Inc., Turner Entertainment Co., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. for Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Christal May at CMay@jenner.com with further instructions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the transcription company. (Singer, David) (Entered: 05/11/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463610963/","id":463610963,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478762349/","id":478762349,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/49/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-05-11T09:03:18.693880-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:20.913620-07:00","sha1":"29a27921481eabdd1ee2b32116a97c1d3ab66387","page_count":1,"file_size":104284,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.49.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146/gov.uscourts.cacd.987146.49.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Document 49 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 1 Page ID\n #:1210\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL\n\n\nCase No.: 2:25-cv-08768-SB-E Date: May 1, 2026\n\n\nTitle: Disney Enterprises, Inc. et al. v. Minimax et al.\nPresent: The Honorable STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR., U.S. District Judge\n Lynnie Fahey CourtSmart\n Deputy Clerk Court Reporter\n\n Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):\n David R. Singer Robert M. Schwartz\n Lauren Michelle Greene Aaron H Perahia\n\n Proceedings: (Minutes of) Mandatory Scheduling Conference (Held and\n completed)\n\n\n The Court heard from the parties about the contents of their joint Rule 26(f)\n report. The parties represented that they have fully exchanged initial disclosures.\n A case management order will be issued separately.\n\n As stated on the record, Defendant MiniMax is dismissed without prejudice.\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).\n\n\n\n\n 0:18\n\n\n\n\n CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES \u2013 GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk LFA\n\n 1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-11T23:54:43.785508-07:00","document_number":"49","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047740574","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Scheduling Conference - optional html form","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-11T09:03:18.659962-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:20.869734-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-01","time_filed":null,"entry_number":49,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-01.005","pacer_sequence_number":209,"description":"MINUTES OF Mandatory Scheduling Conference held before Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: The Court heard from the parties about the contents of their joint Rule 26(f) report. The parties represented that they have fully exchanged initial disclosures. A case management order will be issued separately. As stated on the record, Defendant MiniMax is dismissed without prejudice. Court Smart: CS 05/01/2026. (gk) (Entered: 05/11/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463490619/","id":463490619,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71357247/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478637733/","id":478637733,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71357247/48/disney-enterprises-inc-v-minimax/","date_created":"2026-05-08T14:33:30.928500-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.218067-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"48","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"031047732948","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Order Form (G-120)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-08T14:33:30.904909-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:18:21.160063-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-08","time_filed":"14:25:43","entry_number":48,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":207,"description":"TRANSCRIPT ORDER as to Defendants Does, MiniMax, Nanonoble Pte. Ltd., Shanghai Xiyu Jizhi Technology Co. Ltd. for Court Smart (CS). Court will contact Andrea Llamas at Andreallamas@quinnemanuel.com with further instructions regarding this order. Transcript preparation will not begin until payment has been satisfied with the transcription company. (Kahn, Bradley) (Entered: 05/08/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=71357247&page_size=40"}