IP UPDATE

One frame is enough: Second Circuit narrows de minimis use, limits fair use at pleading stage

by Nicholas J. DiRoberto | May 14, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment on the pleadings, clarifying that the de minimis doctrine does not apply where the copyrighted work is identifiable in the secondary use – even if only a single frame is copied – and that fair use is unlikely to be resolved at the pleading stage when an entire copyrighted work is republished for commercial purposes. Richardson v. Townsquare Media, Inc., Case No. 25-291-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2026) (Lynch, Nardini, Menashi, JJ.)

Delray Richardson operates the YouTube channel “Straight Game TV.” In May 2015, he posted a 42 second video showing Michael Jordan intervening in a confrontation. The video gained widespread attention in July 2023 after the hip hop blog DailyLoud reposted it in full on X. Townsquare Media subsequently published an article reporting on the incident and embedded DailyLoud’s X post containing the entire video.

In a separate incident, Richardson recorded an interview with rapper Grandmaster Melle Mel in March 2023. Richardson posted a three-minute clip of the interview, in which Melle Mel made controversial statements about Eminem, to YouTube. The following day, Townsquare published an article discussing the interview and embedded the YouTube clip. The article’s header image included a screenshot taken from the Melle Mel video, depicting Melle Mel next to an image of Eminem. Two days later, Townsquare published a follow up article about rapper 50 Cent’s response and included a second screenshot from the same video, this time placed next to an image of 50 Cent.

Richardson sued Townsquare for copyright infringement based on Townsquare’s use of the Jordan video, the Melle Mel video, and the two screenshots. Townsquare moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that:

Its use of the Jordan video constituted fair use.
Its embedding of the Melle Mel video was authorized under YouTube’s terms of service.
The screenshots were de minimis.

The district court accepted each argument and dismissed the case in full. Richardson appealed.

The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s fair use ruling as to the Jordan video. Applying the four factors under 17 U.S.C. § 107, the Second Circuit disagreed with the district court’s analysis of the first, third, and fourth factors.

As to the first factor (the purpose and character of the use), the Second Circuit concluded that it was “debatable” whether Townsquare’s article added meaningful commentary, and even if it did, any transformative character was substantially offset by the use’s commercial nature.

On the third factor (the amount and substantiality of the portion used), the Second Circuit emphasized that Townsquare republished the entire video, rather than linking to or embedding it in a manner consistent with the original platform. That full reproduction weighed heavily against fair use at the pleading stage.

With respect to the fourth factor (the effect on the potential market), the Second Circuit concluded that Townsquare failed to carry its burden of showing that its use did not usurp a market for the [...]

Continue Reading

Transformative documentary use, work made for hire doctrine defeat copyright claims

by Lisette Donewald | May 14, 2026 | Copyrights

Elaborating on the application of the fair use doctrine in the documentary context, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment after determining that seven of the eight works at issue were works made for hire and that the defendant’s use of the eighth work constituted fair use under all four statutory factors. Whyte Monkee Productions, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 22-6086 (10th Cir. Apr. 30, 2026) (Holmes, Hartz, Carson, JJ.)

The dispute arose from Netflix’s use of video footage in its documentary series Tiger King. The footage was filmed by Timothy Sepi, who later claimed copyright ownership through his company, Whyte Monkee Productions. Whyte alleged that Netflix infringed its copyrights by including eight videos in the series.

Netflix argued that the first seven videos were made for hire because Sepi created them while he was employed by the Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park. The district court agreed, crediting evidence that filming was part of Sepi’s job responsibilities and noting significant inconsistencies between Sepi’s 2016 and 2021 deposition testimony regarding his employment and role in creating the footage.

The eighth video, which was the only one not created within the scope of Sepi’s employment, was a 24-minute recording of a funeral. Netflix used approximately 66 seconds of the funeral video in Tiger King. The district court agreed with Netflix that this was fair use. Whyte appealed.

Whyte advanced new arguments on appeal challenging the work made for hire status of the first seven videos. The new arguments differed meaningfully from those presented to the district court. The Tenth Circuit found that the new arguments were waived because Whyte failed to raise the theories below or argue for plain error on appeal. Thus, the Court declined to consider them and affirmed summary judgment as to the first seven videos.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling regarding the eighth video that all four fair use factors favored Netflix.

Factor one: Transformative use and justification

The Tenth Circuit’s analysis of the first factor (the purpose and character of the use) emphasized that the central question is whether the secondary use has a distinct purpose or character, not merely whether it adds new meaning. The Court explained that the original funeral video functioned as a memorial recording while Tiger King repurposed the footage to illustrate and comment on Joe Exotic’s personality, specifically his performative behavior and megalomania. That difference in purpose rendered the use transformative.

The Court clarified the role of “justification” and “targeting” in transformative use analysis. Where a secondary use has a sufficiently distinct purpose or character, no independent justification, such as parody or direct commentary on the original work, is required. Targeting the original work is necessary only where the secondary use does not otherwise establish meaningful transformativeness. This analysis tempers overly rigid interpretations of the Supreme Court’s Warhol v. Lynn decision and preserves flexibility for documentary and contextual uses.

The Court further determined that although Tiger King was a commercial [...]

Continue Reading

It’s not a trap: A shared copyright license can still be exclusive

by Keval Amin | May 14, 2026 | Copyrights

Addressing statutory standing under the Copyright Act, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding that a license is not rendered nonexclusive merely because the copyright owner retained certain rights or previously granted nonexclusive licenses. Great Bowery Inc. v. Consequence Sound LLC, Case No. 24-12482 (11th Cir. May 5, 2026) (Jordan, Newsom, Corrigan, JJ.)

In 2014, a photographer entered into an artist agreement granting Great Bowery the exclusive right to license and market certain photographs. The photographer retained the ability to provide those works to select third parties for limited projects. Around the same time, Condé Nast invited the photographer to shoot the cast and crew of new Star Wars films and obtained a nonexclusive license to publish the photographs in Vanity Fair magazine.

When photographs from Vanity Fair’s Star Wars feature later appeared on Consequence Sound’s website, Great Bowery sued Consequence Sound for copyright infringement.

During discovery, Great Bowery relied on a 2018 authorization letter from the photographer permitting Great Bowery to enforce her copyrights on her behalf. The district court denied Great Bowery’s untimely motion to amend the complaint to add the photographer as a coplaintiff and granted summary judgment for Consequence Sound. The district court concluded that Great Bowery lacked statutory standing under 17 U.S.C. § 501(b) because it did not hold an exclusive copyright interest. Great Bowery appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of leave to amend, explaining that while third party infringers generally may not challenge technical deficiencies in a copyright transfer, they are permitted to dispute whether a purported transfer actually conveyed any exclusive rights. Because Consequence Sound challenged the substance of Great Bowery’s alleged ownership rather than the adequacy of the writing, Great Bowery bore the burden of establishing standing, and Consequence Sound was entitled to contest it.

On the merits, however, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment, holding that the district court misapplied governing law on exclusive licenses. The district court had concluded that Great Bowery’s license was necessarily nonexclusive because the photographer retained certain usage rights and had previously granted Condé Nast a nonexclusive publication license. According to the Eleventh Circuit, that reasoning misunderstood the divisibility of copyright interests.

The Eleventh Circuit explained that copyright rights enumerated in 17 U.S.C. § 106, such as reproduction, distribution, and public display, are divisible and independently transferable. As a result, a copyright owner may retain or grant some rights while conveying others exclusively. The presence of retained rights or prior nonexclusive licenses does not categorically defeat exclusivity as long as the licensee possesses at least one exclusive § 106 right sufficient to confer standing under § 501(b).

Applying that principle, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the argument that Condé Nast’s preexisting nonexclusive license necessarily precluded Great Bowery’s exclusive rights. A nonexclusive license grants only permission to use copyrighted material and does not transfer ownership of any portion of the copyright. Thus, the photographer remained free to transfer exclusive ownership interests to [...]

Continue Reading

Words of approximation require more precision after narrowing amendments

by Amol Parikh | May 14, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment of indefiniteness, concluding that the use of the term “about” to define a critical pH limitation failed to inform skilled artisans of claim scope with reasonable certainty under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. v. Safe Foods Corp., Case No. 24-2106 (Fed. Cir. May 4, 2026) (Lourie, Prost, Burroughs, JJ.)

Enviro Tech owns a patent that claims a method for treating poultry during processing to increase the weight of the poultry by using peracetic acid. Each claim in the patent requires the step of altering the pH of the peracetic-acid-containing water to “a pH of about 7.6 to about 10” by adding an alkaline source.

During claim construction, the district court concluded that the term “about” was indefinite, finding that the intrinsic evidence did not inform a skilled artisan as to the scope of the term “about” with reasonable certainty. Enviro Tech appealed.

The Federal Circuit has long held that words such as “about” and “approximately” may be appropriately used to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter. However, when a word of approximation is used, the parameter’s range must be reasonably certain based on the “technological facts of the particular case” and considering the claims, specification, prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence.

Starting with the claims, the Federal Circuit found that they failed to provide meaningful guidance on how far below a pH of 7.6 or above a pH of 10 the peracetic-acid-containing water could fall and still satisfy the limitation. Although the parties agreed that “about” ordinarily means “approximately,” the Court concluded that substituting one term for the other does not clarify the permissible deviation from the claimed range or otherwise inform a skilled artisan of the scope of the claims.

The Federal Circuit next turned to the specification, finding that it also failed to define the scope of “about” with reasonable certainty because it provided inconsistent guidance on acceptable pH deviations. Although the specification disclosed experiments where Enviro Tech only proceeded when the measured pH was within 0.3 of the target, the specification also described instances where Enviro Tech continued experiments despite larger deviations, including a large scale poultry processing test with pH variances of up to 0.5. Given these unexplained exceptions (particularly in a commercially significant real world setting) the Court found that the 0.3 threshold could not be treated as a reliable boundary for “about.” Thus, the Court found that the specification’s conflicting examples left skilled artisans without clear notice of the claimed scope.

Turning to the prosecution history, the Federal Circuit found that Enviro Tech treated the term “about” inconsistently. For instance, in one office action response, Enviro Tech argued that “a peracetic acid solution at the lower end of the claimed range, pH 7.6,” would not have been obvious over the prior art, notably omitting the word “about.” Yet on the very next page, Enviro Tech asserted that “a step of adjusting the pH to the range [...]

Continue Reading

Lost in the constellation: Result-oriented claims miss the mark under § 101

by Keval Amin | May 7, 2026 | Patents

Addressing issues related to patent eligibility, infringement, and damages, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded, finding that certain result-oriented claims were directed to an abstract idea, lacked an inventive concept, and were therefore not patent eligible. Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., Case No. 24-1822 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 2026) (Lourie, Stoll, Oetken, JJ.)

Constellation sued LG for infringing its patents directed to communication systems employing non-uniform constellations, which are signal configurations designed to improve data transmission capacity compared to conventional uniform constellations. The accused products were LG televisions compliant with the ATSC 3.0 broadcast standard.

Constellation successfully moved for summary judgment in its favor on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. At trial, Constellation asserted nine claims across four patents, which the parties grouped into two categories: “optimization claims,” which recited constellations optimized for capacity, and “constellation claims,” which recited specific non-uniform constellation configurations. A jury found willful infringement and awarded damages. The district court denied LG’s motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement and no damages. LG appealed.

On the patent eligibility issue, the Federal Circuit applied the two-step Alice framework and vacated the district court’s ruling as to the optimization claims. At step one, the Court found those claims directed to the abstract idea of optimizing a constellation for parallel decoding capacity. The Court emphasized that the claims were written in a result-oriented manner, reciting a constellation “optimized” for capacity without specifying how that optimization was achieved. Although the claims did not cover every possible optimization technique, they were broad enough to encompass all ways of optimizing a constellation for parallel decoding capacity. The Court rejected Constellation’s reliance on technical details in the specification and reiterated that the § 101 inquiry focuses on the claim language, not unclaimed implementation details. At step two, the Court found no inventive concept, explaining that Constellation’s alleged innovation was the abstract idea itself and that arguments based on novelty or nonobviousness do not satisfy § 101.

In contrast, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s eligibility determination for the constellation claims. The Court explained that representative claims recited specific, concrete configurations (such as unequally spaced constellation points, distinct labeling, and overlapping point locations) amounting to a particular technological solution to a defined problem. Because those claims were not directed to an abstract idea, the Court did not proceed to step two.

On infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of JMOL. The Court clarified that a patentee may rely on industry standard compliance to prove some claim limitations while using product-specific evidence for others, as long as the standard is sufficiently specific and either mandatory or shown to be implemented in the accused products. Applying that framework, the Court found that substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict.

As for damages, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of LG’s JMOL motion and its challenge to the admissibility of Constellation’s damages expert. The Court [...]

Continue Reading