Citation Codes Equivalent Citations citation codes Docket Number No. 07-16648. Attorney(S) Drexel Andrew Bradshaw, Esquire, Bradshaw Associates P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Robert F. Hinton, Esquire, David Martinez, Robins Kaplan Miller Ciresi, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee. Judges Alex Kozinski Procter Ralph Hug Carlos T. Bea Acts Copyrights — Subject Matter And Scope Of Copyright — Subject Matter Of Copyright: In General See more information ... Smart Summary Please sign up to generate summary. IDENTITY ARTS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BEST BUY ENTERPRISE SERVICE, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Defendant-Appellee. MEMORANDUM This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. The district court did not err by granting Best Buy's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The cell phone courtesy messages at issue are not substantially similar as a matter of law because Best Buy copied only Identity Arts's idea, not its protectable expression. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b); Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm't Co., 462 F.3d 1072, 1077 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the license agreement between the parties expressly permits Best Buy to make its own cell phone courtesy messages styled as faux movie trailers. Cf. S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989). Finally, Identity Arts is judicially estopped from contending that its courtesy message tells the story of a faux movie trailer interrupted by an off-screen cell phone's ring, because this position is clearly inconsistent with Identity Arts's position in the case consolidated with the instant case before the district court, in which Identity Arts characterized its courtesy message as telling the story of a submarine mission requiring silence. See Hamilton v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 2001). AFFIRMED.