Warner Music UK Ltd & Anor v TuneIn, Inc [2023] EWHC 2875 (Ch) (17 November 2023)

Warner Music UK Ltd & Anor v TuneIn, Inc [2023] EWHC 2875 (Ch) (17 November 2023)

The Court held that while comparable licences are relevant to the damages inquiry, disclosure must be reasonable and proportionate. The Claimants are not required to disclose all potentially comparable licences or third-party documents not under their control. Disclosure obligations are limited to focused, clear, and proportionate requests. The parties must cooperate to refine Model C requests under Issues 2A and 2B, and if agreement cannot be reached, the Court will determine the appropriate scope. The Claimants must provide lists of stations licensed for the UK but are not required to undertake broad or unfocused searches for foreign or non-comparable licences. TuneIn's own disclosure...

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2875 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Warner Music UK Limited; Claimant: Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited; Defendant: TuneIn, Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Copyright Infringement Damages Inquiry / Second Case Management Conference (cmc) on Disclosure Disputes
Outcome
Interlocutory orders on disclosure; no final determination of damages or liability.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, Damages Inquiry, Comparable Licences, Case Management, Extended Disclosure, Model C Disclosure, Proportionality in Disclosure
Intellectual Property Copyright Civil Procedure Disclosure Damages Inquiry Comparable Licences Case Management Extended Disclosure +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Warner Music UK Limited

Claimant

Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited

Claimant

TuneIn, Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Copyright Infringement Damages Inquiry / Second Case Management Conference (cmc) on Disclosure Disputes

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants must disclose comparable licences beyond PPL webcaster licences for damages assessment
  2. 2 Whether Claimants have 'control' over third-party PPL documents for disclosure purposes
  3. 3 Scope and proportionality of disclosure obligations for both parties under Issues 1, 2, 2A, and 2B of the Disclosure Review Document (DRD)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that while comparable licences are relevant to the damages inquiry, disclosure must be reasonable and proportionate. The Claimants are not required to disclose all potentially comparable licences or third-party documents not under their control. Disclosure obligations are limited to focused, clear, and proportionate requests. The parties must cooperate to refine Model C requests under Issues 2A and 2B, and if agreement cannot be reached, the Court will determine the appropriate scope. The Claimants must provide lists of stations licensed for the UK but are not required to undertake broad or unfocused searches for foreign or non-comparable licences. TuneIn's own disclosure...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders on disclosure; no final determination of damages or liability.

Orders

  • TuneIn's disclosure under Issue 1 limited to data from MySQL and Redshift databases, not restricted to UK listening activity.
  • Claimants to provide lists of stations licensed for the UK under agreed requests, with no exclusion for 'making available' right.