IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
US Court of Appeals
Subscribe to US Court of Appeals's Posts

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

by | Jan 23, 2025 |

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



read more

No Co-Inventorship Absent Corroborated Conception

by | Jan 23, 2025 |

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



read more

Lager Than Life: $56 Million Verdict in Beer Trademark Dispute Still on Tap

by | Jan 16, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a $56 million trial verdict in a trademark dispute, finding that the evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that a beer company’s rebranding of one its beers infringed a competitor’s trademark. Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. Molson Coors Beverage Company USA LLC, Case No. 23-3142 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2024) (Graber, Friedland, Bumatay, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

Stone Brewing sued Molson Coors in 2018 alleging that Molson changed its packaging of Keystone Light to emphasize the word “stone” in its “Own the Stone” marketing campaign, and that this change infringed Stone Brewing’s trademarks and caused consumer confusion. Molson raised a variety of defenses, all of which were rejected. A jury found infringement and ultimately awarded Stone Brewing $56 million. Molson appealed.

Molson argued that the district court erred in finding that the four-year laches clock did not bar Stone Brewing’s Lanham Act claims. The Ninth Circuit found that the laches clock began running in 2017 when Molson launched the “Own the Stone” campaign, to which all of Stone Brewing’s claims related. The Court noted that prior to 2017, Molson never referred to Keystone as anything other than Keystone in its packaging, marketing, or advertising materials, and specifically never broke up the product name “Keystone” and used the term “Stones” to refer to the number of beers in a case (“30 stones”) or as a catch phrase (e.g., “Hold my Stones”). Thus, the Court found that Stone Brewing brought the suit within the four-year statute of limitations period.

Molson also argued that the district court erred in refusing to set aside the jury verdict on the ground that Molson had a superior interest in the STONE mark. Stone Brewing applied to register the STONE mark in 1996, and the Ninth Circuit found there was substantial evidence that Molson did not approve production of packaging that used “Stone” before that date.

Molson argued that the district court erred in refusing to set aside the jury verdict on likelihood of confusion. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, explaining that Stone Brewing provided evidence from which a jury could plausibly conclude there was “actual confusion” by distributors and customers who thought that Stone Brewing sold Keystone Light. The Court noted that Molson expressly de-emphasized “Keystone” and instead highlighted “Stone” in its 2017 product refresh. The Court also explained that both brands compete in the same beer space, use the same marketing and distribution channels, and are relatively inexpensive products, all of which allowed the jury to plausibly conclude that Molson’s 2017 product refresh of Keystone Light was likely to cause consumer confusion.

Molson also challenged the damages award. At trial, Stone Brewing sought damages in three categories:

  • $32.7 million for past lost profits
  • $141.4 million for future lost profits
  • $41.8 million for corrective advertising.

The jury returned a verdict of $56 million in general damages, which was about one quarter of the requested damages, but did not indicate what amount came from each category. Molson argued that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Pink Is Not the New Black: See Functionality Doctrine

by | Jan 16, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board decision canceling trademarks for the color pink for ceramic hip components, stating that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that the color pink as used in the ceramic components was functional. CeramTec GmbH v. CoorsTek Bioceramics LLC, Case No. 23-1502 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 3, 2025) (Lourie, Taranto, Stark, JJ.)

Trademarks cannot be functional. The functionality doctrine prevents the registration of useful product features as trademarks. As explained by the Supreme Court (1995) in Qualitex v. Jacobson Prods.:

The functionality doctrine prevents trademark law, which seeks to promote competition by protecting a firm’s reputation, from instead inhibiting legitimate competition by allowing a producer to control a useful product feature. It is the province of patent law, not trademark law, to encourage invention by granting inventors a monopoly over new product designs or functions for a limited time, 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 173, after which competitors are free to use the innovation. If a product’s functional features could be used as trademarks, however, a monopoly over such features could be obtained without regard to whether they qualify as patents and could be extended forever (because trademarks may be renewed in perpetuity).

CeramTec manufactures ceramic hip components made from zirconia-toughened alumina (ZTA) ceramic containing chromium oxide (chromia). The addition of chromia gives the ceramic a characteristic pink color. CeramTec obtained trademarks for the pink color as used in these components. CoorsTek Bioceramics, a competitor, challenged the trademarks, arguing that the pink color of the ceramic was functional. The Board agreed, finding that the pink color was functional because it resulted from the addition of chromia, which provided material benefits to the ceramic, such as increased hardness. CeramTec appealed.

The Federal Circuit applied the four-factor Morton-Norwich (CCPA 1982) test to determine functionality:

  • Existence of a utility patent
  • Advertising materials
  • Availability of functionally equivalent designs
  • Comparatively simple or cheap manufacture.

The Federal Circuit found the first and second Morton-Norwich prongs were strongly in CoorsTek’s favor, as CeramTec held multiple patents that disclosed the functional benefits of chromia, such as toughness, hardness, and stability of the ZTA ceramic. Similarly, the Court found that CeramTec had multiple advertising materials that promoted its product’s functional advantages.

The Federal Circuit found that there was no evidence of alternative designs that were functionally equivalent to the pink ZTA ceramic, rendering the third factor neutral. The Court also found the fourth factor neutral because there was conflicting evidence regarding whether chromia reduced manufacturing costs.

Finally, CeramTec argued that CoorsTek should be precluded from challenging the trademarks based on the doctrine of unclean hands. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the Board spoke too strongly in suggesting that the unclean hands defense is categorically unavailable in functionality proceedings but found any error to be harmless. The Court confirmed that the Board had adequately considered the defense and found it inapplicable in this case.



read more

Equity Is Neither a “Good” Nor a “Service” Under Lanham Act

by | Jan 16, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision that, in terms of trademark use in commerce, corporate equity is not a “good” or “service” under the Lanham Act. LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, PC v. LegalForce, Inc., Case No. 23-2855 (9th Cir. Dec. 27, 2024) (Thomas, Wardlaw, Collins, JJ.) (Collins, J., concurring).

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide is a California corporation that operates legal services websites and owns the US mark LEGALFORCE. LegalForce, Inc., is a Japanese corporation that provides legal software services and owns the Japanese mark LEGALFORCE.

Both parties had discussions with the same group of investors. After those meetings, LegalForce Japan secured $130 million in funding, while LegalForce USA received nothing. Thereafter, LegalForce USA brought several claims against LegalForce Japan, including a trademark infringement claim. To support its case, LegalForce USA cited LegalForce Japan’s expansion plan, a trademark application for the mark LF, website ownership, and the use of LEGALFORCE to sell and advertise equity shares to investors in California.

The district court dismissed claims related to the website for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed claims related to the US expansion plan, trademark application, and alleged software sales in the United States as unripe. The district court dismissed the trademark infringement claims related to the efforts to sell equity shares for failure to state a claim. The court found that advertising and selling equity cannot constitute trademark infringement because it is not connected to the sale of goods or services, and the case did not present justification for extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act. LegalForce USA appealed.

To state a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, plaintiffs must show that:

  • They have a protectible ownership interest in the mark, or for some claims, a registered mark
  • The defendant used the mark “in connection with” goods or services
  • That use is likely to cause confusion. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a), § 1125(a).

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that LegalForce Japan had not used LegalForce USA’s mark “in connection with” goods or services, and thus LegalForce USA failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that using LEGALFORCE to advertise and sell equity failed to satisfy the requirement that a defendant used the mark in connection with goods or services. Referring to the U.C.C., the Court explained that corporate equity is “not a good for purposes of the Lanham Act, because it is not a movable or tangible thing.” Equity is also not a service because it is not a performance of labor for the benefit of another. There is no “another” involved because those who buy LegalForce Japan equity are owners and so they are not legally separate “others.”

The Ninth Circuit also agreed with the district court that LegalForce Japan’s services in Japan did not satisfy the “in connection with” goods or services requirement under the Lanham Act. To determine when a statute applies extraterritorially, courts invoke the 2023 Supreme Court
Continue Reading



read more

Bit Swap: Motivation to Modify Prior Art Needn’t Be Inventor’s Motivation

by | Jan 16, 2025 |

Addressing the issue of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, finding that the challenged patent claims were obvious because a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to switch two specific information bits in a 20-bit codeword to improve performance. Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A., Case Nos. 23-1354; -1384; -1407 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 2, 2025) (Dyk, Chen, JJ.) (Stoll, J., dissenting).

3G Licensing owns a patent concerning a coding method for transmitting a channel quality indicator (CQI) in mobile communication systems. The CQI, a five-bit binary integer (0 to 30) is sent from user equipment, such as a cell phone, to a base station to indicate cellular connection quality. Base stations adjust data rates using adaptive modulation and coding, assigning higher rates to strong signals and lower rates to weaker ones. CQI accuracy is critical for maximizing data transmission efficiency and ensuring recovery of the original message despite transmission errors.

The challenged claims of the 3G patent relate to a CQI code designed to maximize protection of the most significant bit (MSB) to reduce the impact of transmission errors. The prior art disclosed a method and a basis sequence table that provided additional protection to the MSB, minimizing root-mean-square error. However, the claimed invention differed in that it required swapping the last two bits of the basis sequence table. The Board found that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to make this modification to enhance MSB protection, nor would a skilled artisan have deemed it desirable. Honeywell appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, finding the claims obvious for four primary reasons. First, the Court determined that the Board incorrectly concluded that a POSITA would not have been motivated to swap the last two bits to improve MSB protection. The Court emphasized that the motivation to modify prior art does not need to align with the inventor’s motivation. As a result, the Board’s reasoning that minimizing root-mean-square error was not the patent’s primary purpose should not have been a primary consideration.

Second, the Federal Circuit found that prior art explicitly taught the importance of protecting the MSB through redundancy. A skilled artisan would have understood that swapping the two bits, as claimed, would add redundancy and enhance protection. Honeywell’s expert testimony further supported the conclusion that the prior art would have provided the requisite motivation to arrive at the claimed invention, and 3G’s expert did not dispute that the swap increased MSB protection.

Third, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Board improperly conflated obviousness with anticipation by requiring that the prior art disclose swapping the two bits. Anticipation requires the prior art to specifically disclose the claimed modification, but obviousness does not. The Court found that the Board erroneously treated the two standards as interchangeable.

Finally, the Federal Circuit found that the Board wrongly required that the claimed basis sequence table represent the preferred or most optimal combination. As the Court [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Just Compensation Based on Hypothetical Negotiation

by | Jan 16, 2025 |

In a long-standing copyright dispute on its second visit to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court affirmed the modest damages award from the US Court of Federal Claims, ruling that a hypothetical negotiation between the parties would have resulted in a license in the amount awarded by the claims court. Bitmanagement Software GmBH v. United States, Case No. 23-1506 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2025) (Dyk, Stoll, Stark, JJ.)

In 2016 Bitmanagement sued the US Navy for copyright infringement of its software. The Court of Federal Claims awarded damages based on usage of the software, rather than the number of copies made. In the first appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the claims court that the Navy had an implied license to make copies of the software but was limited as to simultaneous users of the software, a condition that the Navy breached. The Federal Circuit remanded the case with the following instruction:

Because Bitmanagement’s action is against the government, it is entitled only to “reasonable and entire compensation as damages . . . , including the minimum statutory damages as set forth in section 504(c) of title 17, United States Code.” 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b).

The Federal Circuit further instructed the claims court that Bitmanagement was:

. . . not entitled to recover the cost of a seat license for each installation. If Bitmanagement chooses not to pursue statutory damages, the proper measure of damages shall be determined by the Navy’s actual usage of BS Contact Geo in excess of the limited usage contemplated by the parties’ implied license. That analysis should take the form of a hypothetical negotiation. . . . As the party who breached the . . . requirement in the implied license, the Navy bears the burden of proving its actual usage of the . . . software and the extent to which any of it fell within the bounds of any existing license.

Following this mandate, the claims court denied Bitmanagement’s damages demand of almost $86 million and awarded $154,000. Bitmanagement appealed, arguing that it was entitled to damages based on each copy of the software made, rather than damages based on use exceeding the implied license.

The Federal Circuit disagreed, explaining that the law does not require that every award of copyright damages be on a per-copy basis:

. . . whenever the copyright in any work protected under the copyright laws of the United States shall be infringed by the United States . . . the exclusive action which may be brought for such infringement shall be an action by the copyright owner against the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation as damages for such infringement . . .

As the Federal Circuit noted, the methods used to determine recovery of “actual damages” under § 504 are those “appropriate for measuring the copyright owner’s loss.” Therefore, in § 504(b) cases, the copyright owner must prove “the actual [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Transparency Is the Best Medicine: Device Parts Don’t Justify Orange Book Listing

by | Jan 9, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s delisting of patents from the Orange Book because the patent claims did not “claim the drug that was approved” or the active ingredient of the drug that was approved. Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, et al., Case No. 24-1936 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2024) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes, JJ.)

Teva owns the product that Amneal sought to delist, ProAir® HFA Inhalation Aerosol. The ProAir® HFA combines albuterol sulfate (the active ingredient) with a propellant and an inhaler device to administer the drug. Although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Teva’s ProAir® HFA as a drug, the ProAir® HFA contains both drug and device components (the device components being the physical machinery of the inhaler). Teva lists nine nonexpired patents in the Orange Book for its ProAir® HFA.

Amneal filed an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) seeking approval to market a generic version of the ProAir® HFA that uses the same active ingredient. Amneal asserted that it did not infringe Teva’s nine patents listed for the ProAir® HFA. Teva sued for infringement of six of those patents. Amneal filed counterclaims for antitrust and for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity and sought an order requiring Teva to delist the five patents that it asserted against Amneal. Amneal moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that Teva improperly listed the asserted patents. The district court granted Amneal’s motion, concluding that Teva’s patents “do not claim the drug for which the applicant submitted the application.” The district court ordered Teva to delist its patents from the Orange Book. Teva appealed.

On appeal, Teva argued that a patent can be listed in the Orange Book if the claimed invention is found in any part of its new drug application (NDA) product. Teva argued that a patent “claims the drug” if the claim reads on the approved drug (i.e., if the NDA product infringes that claim). Teva also argued that according to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s broad definition of the word “drug,” any component of an article that can treat disease meets the statutory definition of a “drug.” With this interpretation, Teva’s patents “claim the drug” as the claim dose counter and canister components of the ProAir® HFA.

The Federal Circuit rejected Teva’s interpretation as overbroad because it would allow the “listing of far more patents than Congress has indicated.” The Court rejected Teva’s argument that a patent claiming any component of a drug is listable, explaining that Teva cannot list its patents just because they claim the dose counter and canister parts of the ProAir® HFA.

The Federal Circuit also rejected Teva’s argument that even if Teva’s statutory arguments were rejected, the Federal Circuit must remand the case to the district court to construe the claims. In doing so, the Court rejected Teva’s interpretation of the word “claims” in the listing and counterclaim/delisting provisions, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Motivation MIA? Federal Circuit Sends IPR Back to the Drawing Board

by | Jan 9, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, finding that the Board erred by failing to explain its holding and reasoning regarding a motivation to combine prior art references. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, Case No. 23-1636 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2024) (Stoll, Dyk, Stark, JJ.)

Centripetal Networks owns a patent directed to correlating packets in communications networks, introducing an innovative system designed to enhance network security. The patent focuses on packets (small data segments that collectively form larger communications) and their correlation across network boundaries.

Palo Alto Networks challenged the patent’s validity in an inter partes review (IPR) and argued its obviousness based on three prior art references. The first reference described a system using hashing techniques to identify packets traversing network address translation boundaries and teaching how to correlate packets across such boundaries to identify hosts transmitting or receiving them. The second reference detailed methods for detecting unauthorized traffic directed to unused IP addresses, notifying administrators of potential threats, and enabling automated responses, such as blocking or filtering malicious traffic. The reference taught notifying administrators how to manage packets involved in malicious activity after they crossed a network boundary.

Palo Alto argued that combining the packet correlation techniques of the first reference with the notification mechanisms of the second addressed a key claim limitation of the challenged patent. Palo Alto contended that transmitting an indication of a malicious host, as taught by the second reference, naturally followed from the correlation system described in the first. However, the Board found that Palo Alto failed to provide sufficient evidence or argument to show that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would recognize the claimed responsiveness between the first reference’s packet correlation and the second reference’s notification mechanisms. Palo Alto appealed.

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Board’s decision, finding that the Board erred by failing to clearly articulate its rationale regarding the motivation to combine the prior art references and whether their combination satisfied the critical limitation of the challenged patent claim. The Court emphasized that the proper inquiry in an obviousness analysis is not whether each reference individually discloses all claim elements but whether their combination would have rendered the invention obvious to a POSITA.

Palo Alto maintained that the Board did not dispute the existence of a motivation to combine and improperly searched for a “bridge” solely within the two references. Centripetal countered that Palo Alto had not established a motivation or provided evidence of a necessary connection – or “bridge” – between the prior art and the claimed invention.

The Federal Circuit determined that the Board’s decision lacked a definitive finding on whether a POSITA would have been motivated to combine the first reference’s correlation techniques with the second reference’s notification step. The Court noted that Palo Alto presented logical and evidentiary support as to why such a combination would make sense, arguing that without a notification step, the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Interoperability Doesn’t Imply Derivative Work

by | Jan 9, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained that to be a derivative work, a program interoperative with another must actually incorporate aspects of the underlying work. The Court further ruled that licensees of a copy of a computer program are not “owners” of the copy and therefore are not entitled to make copies for the purposes permitted by 17 U.S.C. § 117(a). Oracle International Corp. v. Rimini Street, Inc., Case No. 23-16038 (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2024) (Bybee, Bumatay, Bennett, JJ.)

Rimini provides third-party support for Oracle software and is a direct competitor with Oracle in the software support services market. For more than a decade, Oracle and Rimini have been involved in what the Ninth Circuit describes as a “pitched copyright war.” This latest battle relates to changes Rimini made to its business model after a district court determined that Rimini had infringed Oracle’s copyrights. Rimini developed a new process for servicing customers using Oracle software and sought a declaratory judgment that its revised process did not infringe Oracle’s copyrights. Oracle counterclaimed for copyright infringement and Lanham Act violations.

The district court found that Rimini created infringing derivative works because its new process interacted and was usable with Oracle software. The district court found that Rimini violated Oracle’s PeopleSoft and Database licensing agreements and made several statements violating the Lanham Act. The court struck Rimini’s affirmative defense to copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 117(a), granted Oracle summary judgment that Rimini infringed Oracle’s copyrights, and issued a permanent injunction against Rimini. Rimini appealed.

Derivative Works

The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s analysis of Rimini’s new process, noting that the district court focused on an “interoperability test,” which does not exist under the text of the Copyright Act or in precedent. In effect, the district court’s test would find that if a product interoperates with a preexisting copyrighted work, then it must be derivative. The Ninth Circuit explained that while the Copyright Act uses broad language to describe derivative works, the derivative work must actually incorporate the underlying work. For Rimini’s new process to be a derivative work, it must incorporate Oracle’s copyrighted work, either literally or nonliterally. The Court found that just because Rimini’s new process interacted with Oracle’s software, that was insufficient to find it was a derivative work.

Affirmative Defense: Section 117(a)

The Copyright Act permits an owner of a copy of a computer program to make a copy or adaptation of that program for certain purposes under 17 U.S.C. § 117(a). The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s ruling, striking Rimini’s affirmative defense under Section 117(a), because the district court erred in determining whether Oracle’s customers “owned” a copy of Oracle’s software, PeopleSoft. The Court explained that to determine whether a party is an “owner of a copy” of a computer program, the courts look to whether the party has “sufficient incidents of ownership” over the “copy” of the software, in view of the totality of the parties’ agreement. Factors that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES