Morgan

MEMORANDUM *

1. Brother Records (Brother) has standing to bring its claims. See Brother Records, Inc. v. Jardine, 318 F.3d 900, 901 (9th Cir.2003).

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying laches to bar Brother’s claims for damages. See Beaty v. Selinger, 306 F.3d 914, 921 (9th Cir.2002). We review the district court’s factual determinations de novo. Id. In light of the royalty checks, public record sales and various lawsuits, the district court correctly concluded that Brother knew or should have known of Morgan’s infringement long ago. Morgan has suffered substantial evidentiary prejudice; several major witnesses have died and important documents have been lost during Brother’s extremely long period of silence. In light of the public sales and royalty checks, Morgan did not fraudulently conceal his use of the recordings. In light of the ineffective agreement to transfer rights and Morgan’s lawsuits against other infringers, Morgan was not a willful infringer. We affirm.

3. The district court abused its discretion by applying laches to bar Brother’s prayer for injunctive relief, as “laches is generally not a bar to prospective injunctive relief.” Jarrow…