United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

____________ FILED October 9, 2024 No. 23-50162 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk UMG Recordings, Incorporated; Capitol Records, L.L.C.; Warner Bros. Records, Incorporated; Sony Music Entertainment; Arista Records, L.L.C.; Arista Music; Atlantic Recording Corporation; Capitol Christian Music Group, Incorporated; Elektra Entertainment Group, Incorporated; Fonovisa, Incorporated; Fueled by Ramen, L.L.C.; LaFace Records, L.L.C.; Nonesuch Records, Incorporated; Rhino Entertainment Company; Roadrunner Records, Incorporated; Roc-A-Fella Records, L.L.C.; Tooth & Nail, L.L.C.; Zomba Recording, L.L.C.,

Plaintiffs—Appellees/Cross-Appellants,

versus Grande Communications Networks, L.L.C.,

Defendant—Appellant/Cross-Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:17-CV-365 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Higginson, Circuit Judges. Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge: Case: 23-50162 Document: 117-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2024

No. 23-50162

This appeal arises from an action filed by Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross- Appellants, a group of major record labels (collectively “Plaintiffs”), against Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee Grande Communications Networks, LLC (“Grande”), a large internet service provider (“ISP”) in Texas, for contributory copyright infringement. Judgment was entered below in Plaintiffs’ favor following a three-week jury trial, in which ten jurors unanimously found Grande liable for willful contributory copyright infringement. The jury awarded Plaintiffs $46,766,200 in statutory damages pursuant to the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (“the Copyright Act”). During trial, Grande moved orally for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) on the issue of its liability, which the district court denied. Grande renewed its motion for JMOL and, alternatively, a new trial on the issue of statutory damages, which the court again denied. On appeal, Grande challenges the district court’s rulings reflected in (1) the order denying Grande’s renewed motion for JMOL or a new trial, including its reference back to legal questions previously resolved at summary judgment; (2) the jury instructions; and (3) the final judgment. Plaintiffs’ conditional cross-appeal challenges one ruling made by the district court in its jury instructions. We hold that the district court did not err in concluding the jury’s ver- dict finding Grande liable for contributory copyright infringement was sup- ported both as a matter of law and by sufficient evidence, so we do not reach Plaintiffs’ conditional cross-appeal. However, the district court erred in granting JMOL that each of the 1,403 songs in suit was eligible for a separate award of statutory damages. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the jury’s verdict finding Grande liable for contributory copyright infringement; VACATE the jury’s damages award and REMAND for a new trial on damages; and DISMISS Plaintiffs’ conditional cross-appeal as moot.

2 Case: 23-50162 Document: 117-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/09/2024

No. 23-50162

I.