“[C]opyright for a work describing how to perform a process does not extend to the process itself.”
How later courts described this case
- “[C]opyright for a work describing how to perform a process does not extend to the process itself.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 26 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VITALY E. PILKIN, No. 21-16346
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:21-cv-01483-DMR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GOOGLE LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Donna M. Ryu, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted April 11, 2022***
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Vitaly E. Pilkin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging copyright infringement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
12(b)(6). Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Pilkin’s action because even if Pilkin’s
disputed narrative may be protected by copyright, the ideas and processes it
describes are not. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (listing copyright protection exclusions,
including any procedure, process, concept, or system, regardless of the form in
which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work); Bikram’s
Yoga Coll. of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC, 803 F.3d 1032, 1038 (9th Cir.
2015) (“[C]opyright for a work describing how to perform a process does not
extend to the process itself.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-16346