a salary until over a year after founding UpCodes. (Defs. Resp. ¶ 168; G. Reynolds Opp. Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 12, 15; S. Reynolds Opp. Decl. ¶¶ 6–7, 10.) The record also contains UpCodes talking points reflecting that Defendants at least publicly represented that they believed their actions were legal. (See Gratz Opp. Decl. Ex. 4.) See also Yurman Design, Inc. v. PAJ, Inc., 262 F.3d 101, 112 (2d Cir. 2001) (“Willfulness in this context means that the defendant recklessly disregarded the possibility that its conduct represented infringement.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, conceivably a reasonable jury could find that any infringement by Defendants was willful. “Still, it is not beyond peradventure that a reasonable jury would conclude otherwise. And that is enough to make summary judgment on the issue of willfulness inappropriate.” Island Software, 413 F.3d at 264. Given the numerous genuine factual disputes presented throughout the record before the Court, at this stage of the proceedings the Court cannot find purely as a matter of law that any infringement Defendants may have committed was willful.
100
