defendant’s conduct “was for the purpose of reselling those Phones for a profit, and not ‘for the
sole purpose of lawfully connecting to a wireless telephone communication network.’”^819 As in
the Riedeman case, the court entered an injunction against the defendant that prohibited the
defendant from even “purchasing ... any wireless mobile phone that they know or should know
bears any Registered TracFone Trademark ....”^820 The court ruled that any violation of the
injunction would be subject to a finding of contempt and a payment of liquated damages to
TracFone of the greater of $250,000 or $5,000 for each TracFone handset purchased, sold,
unlocked, altered in any way, or shipped.^821
In a virtually identical opinion under similar facts, in TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Anadisk
LLC,^822 the same court found a violation of Section 1201, imposed the maximum statutory
damages award of $2,500 per phone on 4,990 phones for a total award of $12,375,000, and
entered a similar injunction. The court ruled that any violation of the injunction would be
subject to a finding of contempt and a payment of liquated damages to TracFone of the greater of
$1,000,000 or $5,000 for each TracFone handset purchased, sold, unlocked, altered in any way,
or shipped.^823
And again in TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. SND Cellular, Inc., the same court imposed the
maximum statutory damages award of $11,370,000 based on trafficking in a minimum of 4,548
phones and entered a similar injunction. Again the court ruled that any violation of the
injunction would be subject to a finding of contempt and a payment of liquated damages to
TracFone of the greater of $1,000,000 or $5,000 for each TracFone handset purchased, sold,
unlocked, re-flashed, altered in any way, or shipped.^824
In TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Zip Wireless Products, Inc.,^825 the court denied a motion to
dismiss TracFone’s claims of copyright infringement on the ground that the Copyright Office
exemption applied. TracFone had adequately alleged in its complaint that lawful connection to a
wireless telephone network was not the sole purpose of the defendants’ circumvention efforts,
and that factual allegation was sufficient to overcome the defendants’ argument that TracFone’s
DMCA claims fell within the scope of the exemption.^826
In TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Bequator Corp., the court rejected the applicability of the
Copyright Office’s July 2010 exemption to the defendant’s bulk resale of unlocked or reflashed
TracFone phones. The court noted that the July 2010 exemption applied only to used wireless
telephone handsets and therefore did not cover the defendant’s activities. The court granted a
(^819) Id. at 8.
(^820) Id. at 9.
(^821) Id. at *12.
(^822) 685 F. Supp. 2d 1304 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
(^823) Id. at 1317-18 & 1319-20.
(^824) TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. SND Cellular, Inc., 715 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1263-64 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
(^825) 716 F. Supp. 2d 1275 (N.D. Ga. 2010).
(^826) Id. at 1285.