9th Circuit raises a copyright damages award from $400 to $1,500, ruling a defendant who…
Equine Legal Solutions, Pc v. Fireline Farms, Inc.
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit raises a copyright damages award from $400 to $1,500, ruling a defendant who had already been told three times to remove copyrighted forms online cannot claim innocent infringement.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit vacated a $400 copyright damages judgment and ordered it replaced with a $1,500 award. The court found the district court clearly erred by treating the defendant's fourth repeated online posting of copyrighted legal forms as innocent infringement, because the plaintiff had repeatedly told the defendant to take the forms down. The appeals court agreed, however, that the district court had wide discretion to award only the statutory minimum rather than a higher amount, since the infringements were unintentional in the ordinary sense and caused no measurable harm.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects businesses and individuals who use licensed copyrighted materials, particularly those who have already been warned about infringement, as it makes clear that repeated violations cannot be excused as innocent. It also affects copyright holders seeking statutory damages when their work is posted online without permission.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 13, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 13, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 13, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
This case arose from a copyright dispute between Equine Legal Solutions, a law firm, and Fireline Farms, a business that had posted the firm's copyrighted legal forms online without authorization. The central question on appeal was whether the district court correctly awarded only $400 in statutory damages, and specifically whether it was right to treat the defendant's conduct as innocent infringement under federal copyright law. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court made a clear error in finding the defendant's infringement was innocent. Under federal copyright law, a defendant who was not aware and had no reason to believe its acts constituted infringement may receive a reduced statutory damages award. Here, however, the plaintiff had already told the defendant three times to remove the forms. By the fourth posting, the defendant indisputably knew that posting the forms online was copyright infringement. The court also noted that the copyright notice requirements of the statute were satisfied, which independently blocks an innocent infringement defense. Because the infringement was not innocent, the correct legal minimum was $750 per infringement, not the lower figure the district court applied. The appeals court did uphold the district court's decision to award only the minimum amount of statutory damages rather than a higher figure. District courts have wide discretion to set damages anywhere between the statutory minimum and maximum. The district court considered relevant factors, including deterrence and the nature of the conduct, and found the infringements were unintentional in the everyday sense of the word and caused no discernible harm. The Ninth Circuit found no reversible error in that discretionary call. The result was a vacated judgment with instructions to enter a new award of $1,500, representing the $750 statutory minimum per infringement for two infringing acts. The panel was unanimous, and the opinion is marked not for publication and not as binding precedent except under specific Ninth Circuit rules.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EQUINE LEGAL SOLUTIONS, PC, No. 25-1764 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:22-cv-01850-AN v. MEMORANDUM* FIRELINE FARMS, INC., Defendant - Appellee, and KAIHLY GONZALEZ, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Adrienne C. Nelson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 9, 2026** Portland, Oregon Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Plaintiff Equine Legal Solutions, PC, timely appeals the district court’s entry of judgment in Plaintiff’s favor for $400, in this copyright action against Defendant Fireline Farms, Inc. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the judgment and remand with the instruction that the district court enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $1500. 1. The district court clearly erred in determining that Defendant “was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2); see L.A. News Serv. v. Reuters Television Int’l, Ltd., 149 F.3d 987, 995 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that we review this determination for clear error). As an initial matter, the requirements of 17 U.S.C. § 401(b) were met, so § 401(d) precluded Defendant’s argument that its infringements were innocent. See id. § 401(d) (providing that, if the requirements of § 401(b) are met, “then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages” except in a circumstance not relevant here). In any event, the court clearly erred by concluding that the infringements at issue here—the fourth instance of posting copyrighted materials online—were innocent within the meaning of the statute. The license agreement did not allow Defendant to post the forms online, and Plaintiff repeatedly told Defendant to take down the forms when Defendant posted them online. The fourth illegal posting, as well as the first three, 2 25-1764 may have been due to negligence rather than ill will. But Defendant indisputably knew at that time that posting the forms online “constituted an infringement of copyright.” Id. § 504(c)(2). Accordingly, the correct statutory minimum award was $750 per infringement. Id. § 504(c)(1). 2. The district court permissibly concluded that Plaintiff was entitled only to an award of the statutory minimum. “The district court has wide discretion in determining the amount of statutory damages to be awarded, constrained only by the specified maxima and minima.” L.A. News Serv., 149 F.3d at 996 (citation modified). The court considered many factors in determining the amount of the award, including the need for deterrence and whether Defendant’s conduct was innocent or willful. Even assuming that the court clearly erred in its assessment of a factor, any error was harmless. The court plainly determined that the infringements here were unintentional in the ordinary sense of the word and that the infringements caused no discernible harm. See Kamar Int’l, Inc. v. Russ Berrie & Co., Inc., 752 F.2d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that the district court did not clearly err in finding that the infringements were not willful in the broader sense of the word). The court’s award of the minimum statutory damages falls within its “wide discretion.” L.A. News Serv., 149 F.3d at 996. VACATED AND REMANDED with the instruction to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $1500. 3 25-1764
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.