In the filings, 321 Studios argues that Macrovision's motion for a preliminary injunction is flawed in multiple ways: the alleged direct infringers, 321's customers, are licensed to practice Macrovision's patents and since there is no direct infringement, there can be no claim of inducement; apart from the license that runs with every DVD player, Macrovision has failed to adduce any evidence of alleged direct infringement; in so doing, it seeks to extend the limited monopoly granted to Macrovision's analog copy protection scheme to products that do not involve analog copying at all, as 321 Studios' products only backup digital media to digital media; and it seeks an injunction under the DMCA for conduct that is not even occurring, and which, if it were to occur, would not violate the DMCA.
At the same time, 321 Studios also filed a motion asking the court to transfer this case to either the Northern District of California or the Eastern District of Missouri since there is no material connection to New York for either Macrovision or 321 Studios.
321's motion against the preliminary injunction suggests that Macrovision and the movie studios are conspiring together to stop the sale of 321 Studios products. It points out that portions of the Macrovision complaint are "plainly cut and pasted" from the Paramount and Fox complaint filed in the same jurisdiction in November of 2003.
A hearing for the preliminary injunction motion is set for February 27 and a hearing for the transfer motion is set for March 19. 321 Studios is currently awaiting rulings in the Southern District of New York and in the Northern District of California in cases involving nine major Hollywood movie studios.