# Vitaly Pilkin v. Google LLC

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · April 26, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6335142

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 26, 2022
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6335142

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6335142. Public record. Not legal advice.