IP UPDATE

Vimeo’s Fleeting Interaction With Videos Doesn’t Negate Safe Harbor Protections

by Taylor MacDonald | Jan 23, 2025 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision, granting Vimeo qualified protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor provision. Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, Inc., Case Nos. 21-2949(L); -2974(Con) (2d Cir. Jan. 13, 2025) (Leval, Parker, Merriam, JJ.) This case addresses, for the second time, whether Vimeo had “red flag knowledge” of the defendant’s copyrighted works under the DMCA.

DMCA Section 512(c) provides a safe harbor that shelters online service providers from liability for indirect copyright infringement on their platforms under certain conditions. Congress provided two exceptions that would remove the safe harbor protection:

Actual or red flag knowledge of infringing content
The ability to control content while receiving a financial benefit directly attributable to the accused infringement activity.

EMI, an affiliate of Capitol Records, vehemently opposed Vimeo’s inclusion of videos containing EMI’s music on its site and initiated the present suit in 2009. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Vimeo, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims on the ground that Vimeo was entitled to the safe harbor protection provided by Section 512(c). EMI appealed.

In a 2016 appeal (Vimeo I ), the Second Circuit considered Vimeo’s activities under the DMCA. In Vimeo I, the Court (in the context of an interlocutory appeal) ruled that the copyright holder must establish that the service provider (e.g., Vimeo) had “knowledge or awareness of infringing content,” and that the service provider bore the initial burden to prove it qualified for the DMCA safe harbor, whereupon the burden shifted to the copyright holder to prove a disqualifying exception.

Knowledge of Infringement

In Vimeo I, the Second Circuit cited its 2012 decision in Viacom Int’l v. You Tube and explained that red flag knowledge incorporates an objective standard. The facts actually known to the service provider must be sufficient such that a reasonable person would have understood there to be infringement that was not offset by fair use or a license. Vimeo I clarified that service provider employees who are not experts in copyright law cannot be expected to know more than any reasonable person without specialized understanding.

The Second Circuit explained that this knowledge analysis is a fact-intensive one, and that copyright owners cannot rely on service provider employees’ generalized understanding to prove red flag knowledge for any video (or other work). The Vimeo I court also noted that the DMCA did not place a burden on service providers to investigate whether users had acquired licenses. In Vimeo I, the Second Circuit further instructed that because the legal community cannot agree on a universal understanding of fair use, it would be unfair to expect “untutored” service provider employees to determine whether a given video is not fair use on its face.

Right and Ability to Control

In analyzing what constitutes the right and ability to control, the Second Circuit emphasized that Congress’ purpose behind the DMCA was to effect a compromise between rightsholders and safe harbor claimants: “Congress recognized that the [...]

Continue Reading

Untwisting the Fixation Requirement: Flexible Rules on Moveable Sculptures

by Hannah Hurley | Jan 23, 2025 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s dismissal of a claim of copyright infringement for kinetic and manipulable sculptures, finding that movable structures were sufficiently “fixed” in a tangible medium for copyright purposes. Tangle, Inc. v. Aritzia, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-3707 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2024) (Koh, Johnstone, Simon, JJ.)

Tangle, a toy company, holds copyright registrations for seven kinetic and manipulable sculptures, each made from 17 or 18 identical, connected 90-degree curved tubular segments. These sculptures can be twisted or turned 360 degrees at the joints, allowing for various poses. Aritzia, a lifestyle apparel brand, used similar sculptures in its retail store displays, leading Tangle to file a lawsuit alleging copyright and trade dress infringement. Aritzia’s sculptures were larger, were a different color, and had a chrome finish.

The Copyright Act requires that a work of authorship be “fixed in any tangible medium of expression.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). At the pleading stage, the district court concluded that the sculptures were not fixed and thus dismissed Tangle’s copyright claim. The district court also dismissed the trade dress claim for failure to provide adequate notice of the asserted trade dress. Tangle appealed.

While the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court’s dismissal of the trade dress claim, it disagreed with the district court’s ruling on the copyright claim. Comparing the kinetic, movable sculptures to music, movies, and dance, the Court found that Tangle’s dynamic sculptures were entitled to copyright protection and that Tangle adequately alleged valid copyrights in its sculptures. The Court held that the works’ ability to move into various poses did not, by itself, support the conclusion that they were not “fixed” in a tangible medium for copyright purposes.

The Ninth Circuit held that under the “extrinsic test” test, which looks at “the objective similarities of the two works, focusing only on the protectable elements of the plaintiff’s expression,” as set forth in the Court’s 2018 decision in Rentmeester v. Nike, Tangle plausibly alleged copying of its protected works by alleging that the creative choices it made in selecting and arranging elements of its copyrighted works were substantially similar to the choices Aritzia made in creating its sculptures.

Since Aritzia failed to dispute that Tangle had properly alleged copying, the Ninth Circuit stated that Tangle only needed to show that the sculptures were substantially similar to prove infringement. Applying its 2004 decision in Swirsky v. Carey, the Ninth Circuit explained that “substantial similarity can be found in a combination of elements, even if those elements are individually unprotected.”

The Ninth Circuit found that the copyrighted and accused sculptures were similar enough to the ordinary observer to constitute infringement because both were comprised of identical, connected 90-degree curved tubular segments that could be twisted and manipulated to create many different poses. The Court further explained that the vast range of possible expressions could afford the sculptures broad copyright protection.

Complex or Not Written Description Is Evaluated Against Claims

by Connor M. Larson | Jan 23, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling of invalidity for lack of written description, finding that the district court erred in its analysis of written description because patents must be evaluated based on the claims themselves, not on their construction. In re Entresto, Case No. 23-2218 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 10, 2025) (Lourie, Prost, Reyna, JJ.)

Novartis owns an approved new drug application (NDA) for a combination therapy of valsartan and sacubitril that Novartis markets under the brand name Entresto®. The term “combination therapy” is used to describe pharmaceuticals where two or more active pharmaceutical ingredients are combined in a single method of treatment. Entresto® is protected by several patents, including the patent at issue. Several generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including MSN, filed abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) seeking to market generic versions of Entresto® prior to the expiration of Novartis’ patent. Novartis sued for infringement.

A unique property of Entresto® is the specific form taken by the active pharmaceutical ingredients, valsartan and sacubitril. The valsartan and sacubitril in Entresto® are present in what is known as a “complex,” meaning the two drugs are bonded together by weak, noncovalent bonds. At issue before the district court was the construction of the claim term “wherein said [valsartan and sacubitril] are administered in combination.” The inquiry focused on whether “in combination” required the valsartan and sacubitril to be chemically separated molecules (not in the form of a complex). The district court adopted Novartis’ proposal to give the term its plain and ordinary meaning because the intrinsic record was silent as to whether the molecules must be separate and not complexed. The complexed form of valsartan and sacubitril was not developed until four years after the priority date of the patent.

After the district court declined to adopt MSN’s “complexed” claim construction, MSN stipulated to infringement. The case proceeded to a bench trial on the issue of validity. The district court found the patent not invalid for obviousness, lack of enablement, and indefiniteness. However, the district court ruled that because the patent did not disclose the complexed form of valsartan and sacubitril, it was invalid for lack of written description. Novartis appealed.

Novartis argued that a complex of valsartan and sacubitril was an after-arising invention that need not have been enabled or described. The Federal Circuit agreed, finding that because the patent did not claim the complexed form of valsartan and sacubitril, those complexes need not have been described. The Court cited its “long-recognized” rule that “the invention is, for purposes of the written description inquiry, whatever is now claimed.” All that was required to meet the written description requirement was a disclosure sufficient to show that the inventors possessed a pharmaceutical composition comprising valsartan and sacubitril administered in combination. The Federal Circuit found that by considering what the claims were “construed to cover,” the district court improperly conflated the distinct issues of patentability and infringement. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding of invalidity for lack [...]

Continue Reading

A Lynk to the Past: Published Applications Are Prior Art as of Filing Date

by Dexter Hamilton | Jan 23, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision finding challenged claims invalid based on a published patent application that, in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, was found to be prior art as of its filing date rather than its publication date. Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 23-2346 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2025) (Prost, Lourie, Stark, JJ.)

Samsung filed a petition for IPR challenging claims of a Lynk Labs patent. Samsung’s challenge relied on a patent application filed before the priority date of the challenged patent. However, the application was not published until after the priority date of the challenged patent. The Board rejected Lynk Labs’ argument that the application could not serve as prior art and determined the challenged claims to be unpatentable. Lynk Labs appealed to the Federal Circuit, raising three arguments.

Lynk Labs’ first argument was that the application could not serve as prior art because the publication date meant that it was not publicly available until after the priority date of the challenged patent. Pre-America Invents Act (AIA) law applied. Lynk Labs cited 35 U.S.C. § 311(b), restricting IPR petitioners to challenges “on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” While Lynk Labs admitted that the published application was a printed application, it denied that it was a prior art printed publication.

The Federal Circuit reviewed the issue de novo as a question of statutory interpretation. The Court noted that §§ 102(e)(1) and (2) carve out a different rule for published patent applications than the test for §§ 102(a) and (b) prior art. Under the statute, a patent application filed in the United States before an invention claimed in a later filed application qualifies as prior art if the application is published or a patent is granted on it.

Lynk Labs did not dispute that, under § 102(e)(2), an application resulting in an issued patent can be prior art, even if the patent is granted after an invention’s priority date, as long as the application is filed before the challenged invention priority date. However, Lynk Labs took issue with the fact that the Board applied the same principle, under § 102(e)(1), to applications that are published but do not become patents.

The Federal Circuit explained that the plain language of the statute permitted IPR challenges based on such applications and rejected Lynk Labs’ arguments that the statute should be interpreted differently. Lynk Labs argued that when Congress enacted § 311(b), it transplanted the term “printed publications” from case law, along with that case law’s “old soil” that established that the application would not be prior art.

In support of its argument, Lynk Labs cited case law that in its view suggested that patent applications are never prior art printed publications. However, the Federal Circuit distinguished those cases on the basis they were decided at a time before applications were published and therefore did not address published applications. Lynk [...]

Continue Reading

No Co-Inventorship Absent Corroborated Conception

by Sarah Mezini | Jan 23, 2025 | Patents

In a patent case concerning cryptocurrency data mining, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment and its ruling that a state law conversion claim was preempted by patent law of inventorship. The Court also affirmed the denial of a correction to the inventorship claim. BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC, Case No. 23-1922 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2025) (Stoll, Chen, Bryson, JJ.)

BearBox was an entity founded by Austin Storms that developed and designed mobile cryptocurrency data centers. It operated a half-megawatt data center but was unprofitable as a consequence of the high cost of electricity and the data center’s high energy requirements. Lancium was an entity that aimed to co-locate data centers at wind farms to use the highly variable power generated for data mining but sell excess electricity to the grid when electricity cost was high. BearBox and Lancium met in 2019 at a cryptocurrency mining summit. At that time, BearBox was looking to find customers for its newly developed BearBox containers, and Lancium was in the market for those containers. Both BearBox and Lancium had developed similar software to detect profitable time periods for cryptocurrency mining. Their systems aimed to mine cryptocurrency during periods when electricity prices were low, while selling the energy to the grid when prices were high. Lancium disclosed these concepts in an international patent application filed 15 months before Storms met anyone at Lancium.

BearBox’s system was discussed over dinner at the summit and in a single email exchange afterwards. However, BearBox never disclosed any source code associated with the BearBox system to Lancium. The email exchange was the last communication between the two parties. About five months after the meeting, Lancium filed a patent application that related to a set of computing systems configured to perform computational operations using electricity from a power grid and to a control system that monitored a set of conditions and received power option data based at least in part on a power option algorithm. After that application matured into a patent, BearBox filed suit asserting sole or joint inventorship of the patent and conversion under Louisiana state law.

Lancium moved for summary judgment on the conversion claim. The district court granted the motion, noting that federal patent law preempted the claim. However, the district court denied Lancium’s motion for summary judgment on the inventorship claims – claims that were then heard at a bench trial. At trial, the district court concluded that BearBox failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that BearBox’s founder, Storms, conceived any part of the claimed invention. BearBox appealed.

The Federal Circuit began by assessing the ruling on preemption of BearBox’s conversion claim. Relying on its 2005 decision in Ultra-Precision Mfg. v. Ford Motor, the Court noted that although the state law of conversion does not squarely implicate federal patent law, the way a conversion claim is pled may “[stand] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes [...]

Continue Reading