  Page 3 of 27    a.  In its answer, VidAngel asserted affirmative defenses under the  Family Movie Act and the fair-use provision of the Copyright Act.4  b.  Counts one through three of the counterclaim alleged that the  Studios violated federal and state antitrust laws. Counts four through seven sought  declaratory relief that VidAngel’s disc-based and streaming filtering services did  not violate the DMCA and the Copyright Act and were permitted under the Family  Movie Act (the “Counterclaims”).5  3.  After exchanging expedited discovery with VidAngel, consisting of  approximately 2,000 pages of documents, the Studios filed a motion for a preliminary  injunction.  4.  On December 12, 2016, Judge Birotte granted the Studios’ motion for a  preliminary injunction, holding: (1) the Studios were likely to succeed on their copyright  infringement claims; (2) VidAngel was unlikely to succeed on its defenses; and (3) the  Studios had demonstrated a likelihood of imminent, irreparable injury (the  “Injunction”).6  5.  Eight months later, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Injunction.7 The Ninth  Circuit held that because VidAngel did not use authorized copies of movies to provide its  filtering services, it was unlikely to prevail on its argument that the Family Movie Act  exempted it from liability for copyright infringement. It further held that VidAngel was  unlikely to succeed on its “fair use” defense.   4  Id.  5  Id.  6  , 224 F. Supp. 3d 957 (C.D. Cal. 2016).  7  Disney Enters., Inc. et al. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017).  Case 17-29073 Doc 252 Filed 11/09/18 Entered 11/09/18 14:15:05 Desc Main  Document Page 3 of 27

Document 252