IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D. Utah: Court declines to strike defenses in suit over training videos, (Jan 26, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

Plaintiff sought to strike affirmative defenses involving the first sale doctrine, copyright misuse, and various equitable doctrines.

The federal district court in Salt Lake City declined to strike three affirmative defenses raised by the defendants in a copyright infringement suit over medical training videos. After the defendants asserted numerous affirmative defenses, the plaintiff moved to strike three of them involving the first sale doctrine, copyright misuse, and various equitable doctrines. In denying the motion, the court reasoned that it was required to rule in defendants’ favor given the early stage of the litigation, and that defendants had met the minimum pleading standard for affirmative defenses, even if such defenses may not be permitted at trial (Center for Phlebotomy Education Inc. v. Rasmussen, No. 2:25-cv-00052-DBB-DBP (D. Utah Jan. 21, 2026)).

Background. Plaintiff, Center for Phlebotomy Education, Inc., sells educational training services and resources about phlebotomy, including a video training series entitled “Applied Phlebotomy.” Plaintiff alleges that defendants—Oquirrh Mountain Phlebotomy School entities in multiple states and the school’s founder—made, performed, and distributed unlawful copies of the video series and therefore infringed on plaintiff’s registered copyrights.

Defendants asserted 16 affirmative defenses. Plaintiff moved to strike the second, third, and fourth defenses under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under this rule, a court “may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” In analyzing this rule, the court noted that motions to strike are generally disfavored, and that doubt about striking a pleading should be resolved in favor of the pleading. The court further observed that a party responding to a pleading need only provide “a short and plain statement of each affirmative defense intended to be brought at trial.” The court denied the plaintiff’s motion.

First sale doctrine. Defendants’ second affirmative defense is based on the first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109(a), which states that “the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made” of a copyrighted item “is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.” The court found that although some doubt exists as to whether the doctrine applies, this doubt must be resolved in defendants’ favor. The court cited ambiguous language in the complaint that could be construed as making claims for unlawful distribution of both authorized and unauthorized copies of the training videos.

Copyright misuse. The court rejected multiple arguments by the plaintiff to strike the defendants’ third affirmative defense, which is based on copyright misuse. Plaintiff argued that it is unclear whether copyright misuse is a valid defense. However, the court found that although neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor the Tenth Circuit have officially recognized copyright misuse as an affirmative defense, other circuits have recognized it as such and some district courts in the Tenth Circuit have likewise permitted copyright misuse as a defense. Plaintiff further argued that defendants have not alleged any facts suggesting misuse. But such facts, the court said, are not necessary to plead an affirmative defense at this stage of the litigation. Defendants’ assertion of copyright misuse is sufficient to provide plaintiff with the requisite notice.

Equitable doctrines. Defendants’ fourth affirmative defense is based on various equitable doctrines, including “unclean hands, acquiescence, waiver or implied waiver, ratification, estoppel, and [] promissory estoppel.” Plaintiff argued that defendants failed to allege specific facts supporting the application of the doctrines, and that asserting a list of defenses without supporting facts fails to provide fair notice of defenses. The court said the pleading standard for affirmative defenses is less stringent than that for complaints and must only give the other party notice of what defendants may seek to raise at trial.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-00052-DBB-DBP.

Judge: Barlow, D.

Attorneys: Chad E. Nydegger (Workman Nydegger) for Center for Phlebotomy Education Inc. Perry S. Clegg (Johnson & Martin PA) for Dallas Rasmussen.

Companies: Center Phlebotomy Education Inc.

Cases: Copyright UtahNews