(1) The question presented is whether the trial
court should engage in a substantive analysis
and determination regarding substantialsimilarity as a matter of law at the pleadingstage of the proceedings, without discovery,cross examination of witnesses, and experttestimony, where, as in the case sub judice, the
Petitioner has stated a valid prima facie cause of
action, has an admittedly valid copyright, hasdemonstrated (with uncontested) access andprobative similarity, and has alleged facts thatsatisfy the lay-observer test?

(2) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming
the District Court's grant of Respondents'Motions to Dismiss, even though Petitioner hadstated a valid prima facie cause of action for
direct copyright infringe ment, thereby depriving
Petitioner of his right to a jury trial asguaranteed by the 7
th Amendment of the United
States Constitution?

(3) Whether Petitioner should have been permitted
to amend his Second Amended Complaint?

Whether the trial court should engage in a substantive analysis and determination regarding substantial similarity as a matter of law at the pleading stage