Tag: infringement

Fourth Circuit Reverses $1 Billion Award for Vicarious Liability Claim for More than 10,000 Works

On January 12, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia awarded a group of music recording companies (the plaintiffs) a $1 billion verdict against Cox Communications (Cox). The Virginia court’s ruling found that Cox, an internet service provider (ISP), was contributorily and vicariously liable for copyright infringement committed by certain subscribers on its networks. The plaintiffs alleged that the ISP allowed the unauthorized downloading and distribution of more than 10,000 copyrighted works by Cox subscribers who had already received three or more notices of infringement. The district court in Virginia established that the “takedown” notices sent by the plaintiffs provided Cox with the requisite knowledge of its subscribers’ repeated infringement to substantiate their claim that Cox was contributorily liable, suggesting that Cox had sufficient specific knowledge of infringement to have done something about it.

The plaintiffs’ notice to Cox identified the IP address of the subscriber, as well as the time of infringement and the identification of the infringed work, which the plaintiffs argued was sufficiently specific knowledge for Cox to be able to identify the subscriber and to exercise its policy by suspending or terminating the infringing subscriber. This case proceeded to trial on two theories of secondary liability – vicarious and contributory copyright infringement. The plaintiffs argued that Cox failed to act on these known repeat infringers, and the jury found Cox liable for willful contributory infringement and vicarious infringement, ordering Cox to pay more than $99,000 for each of the infringed-upon works. Cox appealed the jury verdict.

On appeal, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Cox raised several questions of law concerning the secondary liability for copyright infringement, as well as what constitutes a derivative work in the Internet Age.

Vicarious Infringement
The Fourth Circuit’s analysis first considered whether the district court erred in denying plaintiffs’ vicarious infringement claim. “A defendant may be held vicariously liable for a third party’s copyright infringement [if the defendant] (1) profits directly from the infringement and (2) has a right and ability to supervise the direct infringer.” See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 930 n.9 (2005) (internal citations omitted). The Fourth Circuit found that the plaintiffs failed to establish the first element as a matter of law and thus found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that Cox was vicariously liable.

In reaching this decision, the Fourth Circuit turned to the landmark decision in Shapiro, Bernstein & Co., 316 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1963), a case on vicarious liability for infringing copyrighted music recordings. In Shapiro, a department store was sued for the selling of “bootleg” records by a concessionaire operating in its stores. The store had the right to supervise the concessionaire and employees, demonstrating its control over the infringement. There, the store received a certain percentage of every record sale, “whether ‘bootleg’ or legitimate,” giving it “a more definite financial interest” in the infringing sales.” Thus, the Shapiro court found that the financial gains were clearly spelled out from the bootleg sales and acts of infringement in Shapiro.

Next, the Fourth Circuit recognized that courts have found that a defendant may possess a financial interest in a third party’s infringement of copyrighted music, even absent a strict correlation between each act of infringement and an added penny of profits. See Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996). In Fonovisa, the operator of a swap meet allowed vendors to sell infringing goods, and the operator collected “admission fees, concession stand sales, and parking fees” but no sales commission “from customers who want[ed] to buy the counterfeit recordings at bargain-basement prices.” The Fonovisa court found that the plaintiffs adequately showed a financial benefit from the swap meet owner and the sales of pirated recordings at the swap meet, which was a draw for customers. Thus, the infringing sales “enhance[d] the attractiveness of the venue of the potential customers, finding the swap meet operator had a financial interest in the infringement sufficient to state a claim for vicarious liability.”

The Fourth Circuit established that Shapiro and Fonovisa provided the steppingstones of the principles of copyright infringement to the internet and cyberspace and that Congress agreed that “receiving a one-time setup fee and flat periodic payment for service” from infringing and non-infringing users alike ordinarily “would not constitute a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity.” Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F. 3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). The Court also reviewed other court precedents, including A&M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), to show that increased pirated music drew in users as a direct financial interest for vicarious liability., but also notes that courts have found no evidence of a direct financial benefit between subscribers of American Online (AOL) and the availability of infringing content.’’ Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1079.

Against this backdrop, the Fourth Circuit held that to prove Cox was vicariously liable, the plaintiffs had to demonstrate that Cox profited from its subscribers’ infringing download and distribution of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted songs, which – given the evidence at trial – it did not. While the district court found it was enough that Cox repeatedly declined to cancel an ISP subscriber’s monthly subscription fee, the Fourth Circuit found this evidence to be insufficient. Instead, the Fourth Circuit found that the continued monthly payment fees for internet service, even by repeat infringers, was not a financial benefit flowing directly from the copyright infringement. Cox established that subscribers paid a flat fee even if all of its subscribers stopped infringing. Recognizing that an internet provider would necessarily lose money if it canceled subscriptions only demonstrates that service providers have a direct financial interest in providing subscribers with access to the internet only. Thus, the Fourth Circuit held that vicarious liability demands proof that the defendant profits directly from the acts of infringement for which it is being held accountable.

To rebut this, the plaintiffs claimed that the jury could infer that subscribers paid monthly membership fees based on the high volume of infringing content. The Fourth Circuit rejected this argument and found that the evidence was insufficient to prove that customers were drawn to Cox’s internet service or that they continued the service because they were specifically drawn to the opportunity to infringe the plaintiffs’ copyrights. The plaintiffs further asserted that subscribers were willing to pay more for the opportunity to infringe based on Cox’s tiered structure for internet access – but the plaintiffs fell short in proving this claim because no reasonable inference could be drawn that Cox subscribers paid more for faster internet to infringe on the copyrighted works. Ultimately, the Court found that the plaintiffs could not establish a causal connection between subscribers’ copyright infringement and Cox’s revenue for monthly subscriptions. Thus, the Fourth Circuit held that Cox was not liable for its subscribers’ copyright infringement and reversed the district court’s ruling on this theory. The court vacated the $1 billion damages award and remanded the case for a new trial on damages, holding that the jury’s finding of vicarious liability could have influenced its assessment of statutory damages.

Contributory Infringement
The Fourth Circuit then examined the remaining issue of contributory infringement. Under this theory, “one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another is liable for the infringement, too.” Cox argued that the district court erred by taking away the factual determination from the jury that notices of past infringement established Cox’s knowledge that subscribers were substantially certain to infringe in the future. Cox had contracted with a third party to provide copyright violation notices to users and asserted that it used these notices as their safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to alert violators and to terminate access to users who were repeat infringers. Despite this, the Fourth Circuit ultimately agreed with the jury’s finding that Cox materially contributed to copyright infringement occurring on its network and that its conduct was culpable.

Therefore, a three-judge panel found that Cox was liable for willful copyright infringement but reversed the vicarious liability verdict and remanded a new trial on damages. The Fourth Circuit held that because Cox did not profit from its subscribers’ acts of infringement, a legal prerequisite for vicarious liability, Cox was not liable for damages under the vicarious liability theory.

The Impact
The Fourth Circuit’s decision recognizes a new dawn breaking in copyright law, one that requires a causal connection between profit and/or financial gain and a defendant’s acts of infringement to prove vicarious liability in a copyright infringement claim under the Copyright Act. The plaintiffs attempted to bridge the financial gap between acknowledging access to infringing content through a monthly internet subscription and high-volume infringing acts. However, the Fourth Circuit found that this leap in logic was a step too far and reversed the award for vicarious liability for lack of evidence to find this missing connection between Cox subscribers and infringing plaintiffs’ content.

While this may be one route the courts may consider to reduce music piracy damages, it remains to be seen whether other courts will take this approach to determining that profit is the key element supporting other vicarious liability claims in cyberspace.

© 2024 Wilson Elser
For more news on Copyright Litigation, visit the NLR Intellectual Property section.

“Levitating” Lawsuits: Understanding Dua Lipa’s Copyright Infringement Troubles

Even global stardom will not make copyright woes levitate away from British superstar Dua Lipa. The pop icon is making headlines following a week of back-to-back, bi-coastal lawsuits alleging copyright infringement with her hit “Levitating.” First, on Tuesday, March 1st, members of reggae band Artikal Sound System sued Dua Lipa for copyright infringement in a Los Angeles federal district court1. Then, on Friday, March 4th, songwriters L. Russell Brown and Sandy Linzer filed their own copyright infringement lawsuit against the pop star in a New York federal district court2. Both lawsuits were filed claiming violations of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.3

The Artikal Sound System lawsuit is short and alleges that Dua Lipa and the co-creators of “Levitating” copied Artikal Sound System’s 2017 song “Live Your Life.”4 The lawsuit does not provide any details in the allegation, other than explaining that “Live Your Life” was commercially released in 2017, was available during the time Dua Lipa and her co-creators wrote “Levitating,” and that because the two songs are substantially similar “Levitating” could not have been created independently.5 As a remedy, Artikal Sound System seeks actual damages, a portion of Dua Lipa’s profits stemming from the alleged infringement, the cost of the lawsuit, and any additional remedies the Court sees fit.6

Similarly, the Brown and Linzer lawsuit alleges that Dua Lipa and her “Levitating” co-creators copied their works “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” and “Don Diablo.”7 More specifically, the Brown and Linzer lawsuit alleges that “Levitating” is substantially similar to “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” and “Don Diablo.”8

Accordingly, the lawsuit claims that the defining melody in “Levitating,” the “signature melody,” is a direct duplicate of the opening melody in “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” and “Don Diablo,” and therefore appears in all three songs.9 As additional support, the lawsuit points to professionals and laypersons noticing a similarity between the three songs, and Dua Lipa previously admitting that she “purposely sought influences from past eras for the album Future Nostalgia.”10

As for a remedy, Brown and Linzer request full compensatory and/or statutory damages, punitive damages, an injunction on “Levitating,” a portion of Dua Lipa’s profits stemming from the alleged infringement, the cost of the lawsuit, and any additional remedies the Court sees fit.11

The copyright infringement legal framework

A general overview of the copyright infringement legal framework is helpful in assessing the potential outcomes of the “Levitating” lawsuits. Specifically, the legal framework from the 9th Circuit, where one of the “Levitating” lawsuits was filed, provides great guidance.

In order to establish copyright infringement, one must prove two elements: owning a valid copyright and copying of “constituent elements of the work that are original.”12 Importantly, when there is no direct evidence of copying, but rather circumstantial evidence, plaintiffs must show that:

  1. the accused infringers had access to the copyrighted work, and

  2. the infringing work and the copyrighted work “are substantially similar.

Plaintiffs can easily show access to the copyrighted work, but “substantial similarity” is harder to show.

2-Part Test

Luckily, the 9th Circuit devised a 2-part test to prove “substantial similarity.”13 Under the test, there is sufficient copying, and therefore “substantial similarity,” if an infringing work meets an “extrinsic” and “intrinsic” prong.14 The intrinsic prong is met if there is “similarity of expression” between the works, as evaluated from the subjective standpoint of an “ordinary reasonable observer.”15 The extrinsic prong is objective and requires comparing the “constituent elements” of the copyrighted and infringing works to see if there is substantial similarity in terms of the “protected” elements in the copyrighted work.16

As such, if the commonality between the copyrighted and infringing works is not based on “protected” elements, then the extrinsic prong is not met, and there is no “substantial similarity” between the works for purposes of a copyright infringement action. It must be noted that the 9th Circuit recognizes that, in certain situations, there can be a “substantial similarity” even if the constituent elements are individually unprotected, but only if their “selection and arrangement” reflects originality.17

To understand “substantial similarity” one must define what is “protectable” under copyright law. Copyright protection extends only to works that contain original expression.18 In this context, the standard for originality is a minimal degree of creativity.19 According to the Copyright Act, protection does not extend to ideas or concepts used in original works of authorship.20 In the musical context, copyright does not protect “common or trite musical elements, or commonplace elements that are firmly rooted in the genre’s tradition” because “[t]hese building blocks belong in the public domain and cannot be exclusively appropriated by any particular author.”21

Katy Perry “Dark Horse” case and an ostinato

While the “Levitating” lawsuits are still young, a recent decision by the 9th Circuit in the infamous Katy Perry “Dark Horse” case is a good example of how courts conduct legal analyses in copyright infringement cases. The precedential ruling (Gray v. Hudson), released on March 10th, affirms a U.S. District Judge’s decision to vacate a jury verdict that awarded US$2.8 million in damages to a group of rappers who claimed Katy Perry’s “Dark Horse” copied their song “Joyful Noise.”22

The 9th Circuit’s opinion cogently applies copyright law to hold that the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit did not provide legally sufficient evidence that “Joyful Noise” and “Dark Horse” were “extrinsically similar” in terms of musical features protected by copyright law.23

Specifically, the Court reasoned that while “Dark Horse” used an ostinato (a repeating musical figure) similar to the one in “Joyful Noise,” the resemblance in the ostinatos stemmed from “commonplace, unoriginal musical principles” and made them uncopyrightable.24 Without the ostinatos, the plaintiffs could not point to any “individually copyrightable” elements from “Joyful Noise” that were “substantially similar” in “Dark Horse.”25

Additionally, the Court held that the “Joyful Noise” ostinato was not original enough to be a protectable combination of uncopyrightable elements.26 In turn, under the legal framework for copyright infringement the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden.27 The Court put it best by opining that:

“[a]llowing a copyright over [the] material would essentially amount to allowing an improper monopoly over two-note pitch sequences or even the minor scale itself, especially in light of the limited number of expressive choices available when it comes to an eight-note repeated musical figure.”28

“Levitating” lawsuits likely outcomes

Applying the copyright infringement framework to the “Levitating” lawsuits allows us to understand the likely outcomes. First, the Artikal Sound System lawsuit does not allege any direct evidence of copying. As such, Artikal Sound System must show that Dua Lipa had access to “Live Your Life” and that “Levitating” is “substantially similar” to their song under the 2-prong test. Access is easily proved, as “Live Your Life” was commercially available on multiple streaming services when Dua Lipa wrote “Levitating.”29

However, the Artikal Sound System lawsuit does not provide enough information to pass the 2-prong “substantial similarity” test. The lawsuit only alleges that “Levitating” is “substantially similar” to “Live Your Life,” but does not detail any similarities much less provide any evidence that there is similarity of expression between the works from the point of view of a reasonable observer, as required by the intrinsic component of the test.30

More importantly, the lawsuit does not even mention any protectable elements from “Live Your Life” copied in “Levitating” and would, therefore, fail the extrinsic prong of the “substantial similarity” test.31 In turn, as submitted, the Artikal Sound System lawsuit fails to make a prima facie case of copyright infringement by Dua Lipa’s “Levitating.”

The story may be different for the Brown and Linzer lawsuit. Like the first suit, the Brown and Linzer lawsuit does not provide direct evidence of copying and will therefore only succeed if it passes the circumstantial evidence requirements of 1) access and 2) “substantial similarity.” Unlike the first suit, however, the Brown and Linzer complaint includes comparisons of the notes in “Levitating” to the notes in “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” and “Don Diablo” as support for the allegation of “substantial similarity.”

The 2nd Circuit, where the lawsuit was filed, held that a court can determine as a matter of law that two works are not “substantially similar” if the similarity between the two works concerns non-copyrightable elements of the copyrighted work.32 In practice, this means that the 2nd Circuit can apply the 2-prong “substantial similarity” test. Brown and Linzer can easily prove access to “Wiggle and Giggle All Night” and “Don Diablo” since both songs are internationally popular.33

Brown and Linzer can also meet the intrinsic prong of the test because, as they point out, “laypersons” (ordinary reasonable observers) have noticed the commonality between their copyrighted works and “Levitating,” as supported by widespread postings on mediums like TikTok.34 The extrinsic prong of the test is more uncertain.

In their lawsuit, Brown and Linzer point to a “signature melody” that repeats in “bars 10 and 11 of all three songs… [and] with some slight variation, in bars 12 and 13.”35 The court may find that this “signature melody” is not protected by copyright if it reasons that a melody is a basic musical principle, much like the 9th Circuit did for ostinatos in the Katy Perry “Dark Horse” case.

At its core, it seems like Brown and Linzer will have to convince the court that a melody, which they define as “a linear succession of musical tones,” qualifies as copyrightable because it is an original creative expression. Conversely, Brown and Linzer can concede that a melody is not copyrightable, but that their original arrangement and use of the melody in their copyrighted songs is copyrightable. In the end, it will be up to whether or not a court finds that the “signature melody” is copyrightable. As such, the outcome of Brown and Linzer’s action for copyright infringement is uncertain.

Nonetheless, one thing is for sure, copied or not, “Levitating” will continue powering gym visits and nights out dancing.

Footnotes

  1. See Complaint, Cope v. Warner Records, Inc., Case 2:22-cv-01384 (C.D. Cal. 2022).

  2. See Complaint, Larball Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Dua Lipa, Case 1:22-cv-01872 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

  3. See Complaint at ¶ 7, Larball Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Dua Lipa, Case 1:22-cv-01872 (S.D.N.Y. 2022); Complaint at ¶ 12, Cope v. Warner Records, Inc., Case 2:22-cv-01384 (C.D. Cal. 2022).

  4. See Complaint at ¶ 17, Cope v. Warner Records, Inc., Case 2:22-cv-01384 (C.D. Cal. 2022).

  5. See Complaint at ¶ 15-18, Cope v. Warner Records, Inc., Case 2:22-cv-01384 (C.D. Cal. 2022).

  6. See Complaint at ¶ 19-22, Cope v. Warner Records, Inc., Case 2:22-cv-01384 (C.D. Cal. 2022).

  7. See Complaint at ¶ 2, Larball Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Dua Lipa, Case 1:22-cv-01872 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

  8. See Complaint at ¶ 2, Larball Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Dua Lipa, Case 1:22-cv-01872 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

  9. See Complaint at ¶ 3, Larball Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Dua Lipa, Case 1:22-cv-01872 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

  10. See Complaint at ¶ 49, Larball Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Dua Lipa, Case 1:22-cv-01872 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

  11. See Complaint at 13-14, Larball Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Dua Lipa, Case 1:22-cv-01872 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

  12. Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991).

  13. Apple Comput., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir. 1994).

  14. Id.

  15. Id.

  16. Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841, 845 (9th Cir. 2004).

  17. Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 811 (9th Cir. 2003).

  18. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(a); Feist, 499 U.S. at 345.

  19. See Feist, 499 U.S. at 345.

  20. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b); Skidmore as Tr. for the Randy Craig Wolfe Tr. v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051, 1069 (9th Cir. 2020) (en banc).

  21. Skidmore, 952 F.3d at 1069.

  22. Gray v. Hudson, No. 20-55401, slip op at 26 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2022).

  23. Id.

  24. Id. at 14-21.

  25. Id. at 17.

  26. Id. at 22.

  27. Id. at 26.

  28. Id. at 24.

  29. See Complaint at ¶ 16, Cope v. Warner Records, Inc., Case 2:22-cv-01384 (C.D. Cal. 2022).

  30. See Complaint at ¶ 18, Cope v. Warner Records, Inc., Case 2:22-cv-01384 (C.D. Cal. 2022).

  31. See Complaint at ¶ 18, Cope v. Warner Records, Inc., Case 2:22-cv-01384 (C.D. Cal. 2022).

  32. Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57, 63-65 (2d Cir. 2010).

  33. See Complaint at ¶ 35, Larball Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Dua Lipa, Case 1:22-cv-01872 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

  34. See Complaint at ¶ 4, Larball Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Dua Lipa, Case 1:22-cv-01872 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

  35. See Complaint at ¶ 38, Larball Publ’g Co., Inc. v. Dua Lipa, Case 1:22-cv-01872 (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Article By Adrian Gonzalez Cerrillo and Sana Hakim of K&L Gates

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Copyright 2022 K & L Gates

Photographer Unsuccessful in Copyright Case Over Use of Embedded Instagram Photo

User beware – you will be held to a social media platform’s terms of use. Most people are aware by using a social media platform that they give up some rights to the content that they share. What rights and to what extent depends on the platform and the specific terms of use.

A district court in the recent Sinclair case found no copyright infringement by the website Mashable, where it used one of photographer Sinclair’s Instagram photos in an article, even after an unsuccessful attempt to license the photo directly from Sinclair. Sinclair v. Ziff Davis, LLC, and Mashable, Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00790 (S.D.N.Y. April 13, 2020).

Plaintiff Sinclair had a “public” Instagram account and posted a copy of the subject photograph. Defendant Mashable, a digital media and entertainment platform, published on its website an article about female photographers that embedded the publicly posted photo from Sinclair’s Instagram account. Notably, prior to using the Instagram photo, an employee from Mashable contacted Sinclair about licensing the same photo to be used in the article. Sinclair declined Mashable’s US$50 offer to license the use of the photo. Sinclair later demanded that Mashable remove the embedded photograph from their website and demanded compensation. Mashable refused. Sinclair then sued for copyright infringement.

Sinclair argued that Mashable infringed her copyright in the photo since it did not have permission to use the photo. Mashable contended that it had a valid sublicense from Instagram to use the photo and therefore did not infringe Sinclair’s copyright. The court sided with Mashable.

By creating an Instagram account, Sinclair was bound to Instagram’s Terms of Use, which grant Instagram the right to sublicense content that is posted and made public by the user. Instagram then exercised that right by granting Mashable a sublicense to display the photo through sharing the embedded photo. Instagram utilizes API (application programming interface) which allows users to share public content posted by other users. The Instagram policies allow users to use API to embed posts on their websites.

The court held that Sinclair’s right to license the photo directly and Instagram’s right as a licensee to sublicense the photo to Mashable were independent from one another.

Sinclair also contended that the authorization of Instagram to sublicense the photo was invalid because of the complex and interconnected documents which established the rights. While the court agreed that Instagram could make their terms of service and policies more concise and accessible, they were under no obligation to do so.

Lastly, Sinclair argued that it was unfair of Instagram to force a professional photographer to choose between keeping her work “private” on one of the most popular photo sharing apps or to post publicly which would allow Instagram a sublicense to her photographs to users like Mashable. While the court noted this dilemma was very real, the court held that Sinclair had already made her choice by opting to post the photo publicly.

The court also noted that because it held that Instagram had granted Mashable a valid license to display Sinclair’s photo, it did not have to reach the question of unsettled law in the circuit of whether embedding an image is considered a ‘display’ capable of infringing a copyright in an image. That issue was addressed on a motion for summary judgment in Goldman v. Breitbart News Network LLC et al., 1:17-CV-03144 (S.D.N.Y. February 15, 2018), where the court came to the exact opposite conclusion.

In the Goldman case, a different Judge in the same jurisdiction held that the use of embedded Tweets on news media websites featuring a picture of Tom Brady did infringe the copyright of the photographer. The decision for partial summary judgment in favor of the photographer in the Goldman case was highly criticized, and the case ultimately settled outside of court.

While this case affirmed that use of a public Instagram photo as embedded in an article on a third-party website is covered by Instagram’s Terms of Use, this ruling does not necessarily mean that Instagram’s terms grant a blank check regarding the use of publicly posted content. This ruling addressed a specific use of an embedded photo, but did not touch on a litany of other potential concerns when using another’s photo posted publicly on the platform, such as right of publicity, unfair competition, false sponsorship or affiliation, or trademark infringement.

Copyright 2020 K & L Gates

For more on photo & other copyright issues, see the National Law Review Intellectual Property Law section.

Induced Infringement in Commil USA v. Cisco Systems

While the Supreme Court’s section 101 decisions may garner the biggest headlines, the high court has also invested significant efforts in the area of induced infringement. Commil v. Cisco, decided on May 26, 2015, marks the Supreme Court’s third foray into induced infringement in the past halfdecade.

First, in Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., the Supreme Court held willful blindness could satisfy the knowledge requirement for induced infringement. Then, in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the Supreme Court held that induced infringement required underlyingdirect infringement. Now, in a twist on Global-Tech, the Supreme Court in Commil v. Cisco has held that an accused infringer’s good-faith belief in the invalidity of a patent cannot provide a defense to induced infringement.

In reaching its decision in Commil, the Court noted that § 271(b) requires that the defendant “actively induces infringement,” and that because infringement and invalidity are separate issues under the Patent Act, belief regarding validity cannot negate the scienter requirement under § 271(b).

Recognizing that its decision might seem at odds with the “simple truth” that someone cannot be induced to infringe an invalid patent, the Court restated the often-overlooked principle that invalidity is an affirmative defense that can preclude enforcement of a patent against otherwise infringing conduct. In other words, invalidity is a defense to liability but not to infringement.

While a good-faith belief in invalidity may no longer be a defense to induced infringement under Commil, the Court’s rationale in Global-Tech and related case law is still intact. That is, a goodfaith belief in non-infringement may be used to overcome allegations of indirect infringement.

As a result, practitioners should expect an increase in the number of non-infringement opinions and their introduction into the evidentiary record, especially where the underlying litigation relies on allegations of induced infringement—as frequently pled in the electronic, automotive and pharmaceutical disciplines.

Practitioners should also carefully consider the possible extension of the holding in Commil to allegations of willful infringement. At present, willful infringement carries a knowledge requirement, i.e., objective recklessness. And willful infringement may be overcome by a showing that the accused infringer had a reasonable belief in the invalidity of the patent. Black & Decker, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., 260 Fed. Appx. 284, 292 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Yet, if the Court’s demarcation between infringement and invalidity in induced infringement applies equally to willful infringement, the Commil decision could simplify a patentee’s case by rendering irrelevant the accused infringer’s belief of invalidity—effectively rewriting the standards for proving willful infringement.

Accordingly, in view of Commil, practitioners should perform a careful evaluation of pre-litigation strategies. The mere existence of an invalidity opinion will no longer protect a party from allegations of induced infringement, and it may not offer them any protection from a charge of willful infringement either. In both instances, however, a non-infringement opinion may offer that same protection.

ARTICLE BY H. Keeto Sabharwal, Daniel E. Yonan & Joshua I. Miller of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.
© 2015 Sterne Kessler

Supreme Court Holds That TTAB Decisions on Likelihood of Confusion May Bind Courts in Infringement Litigation

Foley and Lardner LLP

In a 7 – 2 decision issued March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held that decisions of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) on the issue of likelihood of confusion, made in registration cases, can be binding on courts in deciding the same issue in subsequent infringement cases. Such “issue preclusion” will likely arise if the uses of the marks before the court are materially the same as the uses considered by the TTAB. The decision in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. is likely trigger more hotly contested — and more expensive — TTAB litigation.

In this case, B&B owned a registration for “Sealtight” for metal fasteners used in the aerospace industry. Hargis sought to register “Sealtite” for metal screws used in the manufacture of buildings. B&B opposed registration, claiming that use of the marks on the respective goods would create a likelihood of confusion. The TTAB agreed and sustained the opposition. In a parallel infringement action, the district court refused to be bound by the TTAB decision, reasoning that the TTAB is not an Article III court. The jury went on to find that confusion was not likely.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed. It held that while an administrative agency’s decision can be a basis for applying collateral estoppel, the doctrine was not appropriate in this context, primarily because the TTAB and the Eighth Circuit use different factors to evaluate likelihood of confusion.

In an opinion by Judge Alito, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed. It held first that “issue preclusion is not limited to those situations in which the same issue is between two courts” (emphasis in original). Rather, under Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solomino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991), “courts may take it as a given” that Congress intends issue preclusion to apply to administrative proceedings where appropriate, except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident. The court held that no such purpose was evident in the Lanham Act of 1946.

The court acknowledged that the TTAB considers different factors than do courts in determining likelihood of confusion. In particular, the TTAB compares marks and goods as they are set forth in prior registrations and pending applications, whereas a court will consider all elements of the parties’ uses, including the context in which the marks appear on packaging. But the court held that the same legal standard of “likelihood of confusion” always applies, even if different usages are considered. Therefore, the possibility of applying collateral estoppel cannot be categorically ruled out.

Importantly, however, the court did not hold that issue preclusion always applies. The question depends primarily on whether the actual usages of the respective marks are “materially different” from the usages specified in the applications or registrations at issue. “If the TTAB does not consider the marketplace usage of the parties’ marks, the TTAB’s decision should have no later preclusive effect in a suit where actual usage in the marketplace is the paramount issue,” it said.

Justice Ginsburg separately concurred to emphasize this point. Quoting the authoritative McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition treatise, she noted that contested registrations are often decided upon “a comparison of the marks in the abstract and apart from their marketplace usage.” When the registration proceeding is of that character, she said, there will be no preclusion in a later infringement suit.

As a result, the preclusive effect of a prior TTAB decision will be a point of contention in a subsequent infringement action. The court will have to look closely at what the TTAB decided, and the evidence it relied upon. For example, in some cases the opposer relies on a registration which is unrestricted as to trade channels or likely purchasers, even though the opposer’s actual business may be restricted to a narrow area. This can sometimes lead to anomalous results, if the applicant seeks to register the same or similar mark for the same or similar goods, but uses its mark in entirely different fields of endeavor, such that the prospects for confusion in the “real world” are remote. Nevertheless, the TTAB will likely refuse registration in that scenario. It would appear that the B&B decision would permit the court, in a subsequent infringement case, to disregard the TTAB decision and decide “likelihood of confusion” based on the parties’ actual use.

In many cases, however, the question of preclusive effect will not be so clear cut. For this reason, parties litigating in the TTAB must consider that the TTAB decision will compel an identical result if infringement litigation ensues later. Typically, TTAB cases have been litigated in a more leisurely and less expensive manner than a court case. After B&B, some may choose to develop a fuller record to help assure preclusion in the event of a future infringement action against the applicant. This would lead to TTAB cases being litigated even more aggressively (and expensively) than they are now.

The decision may also encourage opposers, who fail to prevent registration at the TTAB, to seek review not by appeal to the federal circuit, but by the alternative means of filing a civil action in U.S. District Court under Section 21 of the Lanham Act. In such a case, the opposer would be entitled to de novo review of the TTAB decision and would be able to include infringement claims. The TTAB decision would have no preclusive effect in that case.

The B&B decision finally answers the question of which different circuits have taken different approaches. It does not, however, provide an answer to the question of whether a TTAB decision on likelihood of confusion will or will not have a preclusive effect on a court in a particular infringement litigation. That question will be determined on a case-by-case basis, under normal principles of issue preclusion.

ARTICLE BY

Andrew Baum
Foley & Lardner LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Makes It Easier To Avoid Method Patents Requiring Multiple Actors

Neal Gerber

On June 2, 2014, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a defendant was not liable for inducing infringement of a patented method where there is no direct infringement because the method steps are “divided” between the defendant and its customers. See Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., No. 12–786. The Court was reviewing a 6-5 en banc decision from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that held a party might be liable for inducing infringement under 35 USC 271(b) where a defendant carried out some steps and encouraged others (such as its customers) to carry out the remaining steps. In other words, the performance of the method steps was divided between a party and its customers, so the party could be liable for inducing the performance of the remaining steps it did not perform itself.  The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment against Limelight, reasoning that there could be no liability for inducing infringement if no party directly infringed.

The Supreme Court relied on a prior decision by the Federal Circuit that there is no direct infringement of a method claim unless a single party performs every step of a claimed method or exercises “control or direction” over the entire process such that every step is attributable to that party. See Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Muniauction held that there was no direct infringement of a patented method when its distinct steps were performed by “mere arms-length cooperation” between parties. In Limelight, the Supreme Court “assumed” that Muniauction’s holding was correct but observed that the Federal Circuit could revisit it when the Limelight decision was remanded.

Both Limelight and Muniauction involved client-server scenarios for web-based businesses and cloud-based application services, but this decision has broad implications across a variety of fields, such as personalized or precision medicine.  For example, a patented method directed to diagnosing and treating a disease would not be infringed where a laboratory provides the diagnosis and the treating physician does not exercise “control or direction” over the steps performed by the laboratory.

Until Muniauction is further defined, the Court has returned the law to its state prior to the Federal Circuit’s Akamai holding, where liability turned on whether a single infringer exhibited sufficient “control or direction” over steps performed by others; if not, no one is liable for patent infringement.  For would-be infringers, this potentially provides a useful defense.  For patent applicants, it is a reminder to draft method claims in a manner such that all actions can be taken by a single entity.

Article By:

Michael B. Harlin
James P. Muraff
Kevin A. O’Connor Ph.D.
Mike R. Turner
Of:
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

Only one week until the Trademark Infringement & Litigation Summit – April 28-29, San Francisco

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Trademark Infringement & Litigation Summit hosted by IQPC.

Trademark

When

Monday April 28 & Tuesday April 29, 2014

Where

San Francisco, California, USA

Trademark law may not be changing, but its application certainly has and will continue to do so. Brands are increasingly global, which opens up new possibilities for companies… but also new trademark issues and potential pitfalls. The online experience adds to this global focus and changes the interaction between brands and consumers dramatically.

IQPC’s Trademark Infringement & Litigation Summit will address the topics that you grapple with on a daily basis, including:

  • How business and infringement concerns guide strategic registration and vigilance
  • Methods of enforcing your mark, including a “soft approach,” ICANN dispute resolution, cancellation and opposition
  • Litigation and enforcement management
  • Evolving company domain name strategy

Perhaps the biggest benefit of attending, however, is the practical, frank conversation about the legal and business choices involved in protecting and maintaining your brand. Attend the Trademark Infringement & Litigation Summit to work through these issues with your colleagues.

Do not miss your opportunity to network and engage with top in-house and outside counsel working in the area. Register today!

NOTE: IQPC plans on making CLE credits available for the state of California (number of credits pending).  In addition, IQPC processes requests for CLE Credits in other states, subject to the rules, regulations and restrictions dictated by each individual state.  For any questions pertaining to CLE Credits please contact: amanda.nasner@iqpc.com.

Register today for IQPC's Trademark Infringement & Litigation Summit

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Trademark Infringement & Litigation Summit hosted by IQPC.

Trademark

When

Monday April 28 & Tuesday April 29, 2014

Where

San Francisco, California, USA

Trademark law may not be changing, but its application certainly has and will continue to do so. Brands are increasingly global, which opens up new possibilities for companies… but also new trademark issues and potential pitfalls. The online experience adds to this global focus and changes the interaction between brands and consumers dramatically.

IQPC’s Trademark Infringement & Litigation Summit will address the topics that you grapple with on a daily basis, including:

  • How business and infringement concerns guide strategic registration and vigilance
  • Methods of enforcing your mark, including a “soft approach,” ICANN dispute resolution, cancellation and opposition
  • Litigation and enforcement management
  • Evolving company domain name strategy

Perhaps the biggest benefit of attending, however, is the practical, frank conversation about the legal and business choices involved in protecting and maintaining your brand. Attend the Trademark Infringement & Litigation Summit to work through these issues with your colleagues.

Do not miss your opportunity to network and engage with top in-house and outside counsel working in the area. Register today!

NOTE: IQPC plans on making CLE credits available for the state of California (number of credits pending).  In addition, IQPC processes requests for CLE Credits in other states, subject to the rules, regulations and restrictions dictated by each individual state.  For any questions pertaining to CLE Credits please contact: amanda.nasner@iqpc.com.

Rolex Says "Time is Up" for Alleged Craigslist Counterfeiter

Womble Carlyle

 

On February 5, 2014, Rolex Watch U.S.A.,Inc. (“Rolex”) of New York, New York, filed a complaint against Nicholas Peter Karettis (“the defendant”) of Tyrone, Georgia, allegingTrademark Counterfeiting and Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114.

The complaint alleges Mr. Karettis sold, offered for sale, distributed, promoted, and advertised merchandise that was counterfeit and infringing upon Rolex’s federally registered trademarks.

Rolex owns numerous trademarks and trade names including at least the following:

CROWN DEVICE (design) Registration no. 657,756 Registered on 1/28/1958 for timepieces of all kinds and parts thereof.

DATEJUST Registration no. 674,177 Registered on 2/17/1959 for timepieces and parts thereof.

DAY-DATE Registration no. 831,652 Registered on 7/4/1967 for wrist watches.

DAYTONA Registration no. 2,331,145 Registered on 3/21/2000 for watches.

EXPLORER Registration no. 2,518,894 Registered on 12/18/2001 for watches.

EXPLORER II Registration no. 2,445,357 Registered on 4/24/2001 for watches.

GMT-MASTER Registration no. 683,249 Registered on 8/11/1959 for watches.

GMT-MASTER II Registration no. 2,985,308 Registered on 8/16/2005 for watches and parts thereof.

OYSTER Registration no. 239,383 Registered on 3/6/28 for watches, movements, cases, dials, and other parts of watches.

OYSTER PERPETUAL Registration no. 1,105,602 Registered on 11/7/1978 for watches and parts thereof.

PRESIDENT Registration no. 520,309 Registered on 1/24/1950 for wristbands and bracelets for watches made wholly or in part or plated with precious metals, sold separately from watches.

ROLEX Registration no. 101,819 Registered on 1/12/1915 for watches, clocks, parts of watches and clocks, and their cases.

ROLEX DAYTONA Registration no. 1,960,768 Registered on 3/5/1996 for watches.

ROLEX DEEP SEA Registration no. 3,703,603 Registered on 10/27/2009 for watches.

SEA-DWELLER Registration no. 860,527 Registered on 11/19/1968 for watches, clocks and parts thereof.

SUBMARINER Registration no. 1,782,604 Registered on 7/20/1993 for watches.

TURN-O-GRAPH Registration no. 2,950,028 Registered on 5/10/2005 for watches and parts thereof.

YACHTMASTER Registration no. 1,749,374 Registered on 1/26/1993 for watches.

Rolex Trademark Infringement
The Rolex Crown Device design

According to the complaint, Rolex discovered a classified advertisement appearing on the website “www.craigslist.org” (“Craigslist”) advertising for sale watches bearing counterfeits and infringements of the Rolex Registered Trademarks. These watches were allegedly advertised as “AAA Quality Replica” watches and listed for sale at a price of $200. 

Also according to the complaint, Rolex forwarded the Craigslist add to its private investigator who then called the number provided on the advertisement and arranged a meeting with a man identifying himself as “Nick.”  Rolex’s investigator also arranged for members of the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department to be present at this meeting.  At the meeting, members of the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department arrested the defendant and seized five (5) watches identified by Rolex’s investigator as bearing counterfeits and infringements of the Rolex Registered Trademarks.

Thereafter, the defendant was charged with forged or counterfeited trademarks, service marks, or copyrighted or registered designs, constituting unauthorized reproductions as defined in O.C.G.A. § 10-1-454. Defendant’s vehicle was impounded and the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department seized $14,800.00 in cash found on the defendant’s person at the time of his arrest.

The complaint further alleges irreparable harm, unjust enrichment, willful and malicious infringement, and that the case is exceptional under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) because of the defendant’s alleged reckless disregard or willful blindness in connection with unlawful activities.

Rolex seeks an injunction and treble damages or statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c).  Rolex also seeks legal and investigative fees along with any further relief as the court deems just and proper.

The case is Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Karettis No. 3:14-cv-12-TCB filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Newnan Division on February 5, 2014, and is assigned to Judge Timothy C. Batten.

 
Of:

Register for the Trademark Infringement & Litigation Summit – April 28 & 29, San Francisco, California

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming Trademark Infringement & Litigation Summit hosted by IQPC.

Trademark

When

Monday April 28 & Tuesday April 29, 2014

Where

San Francisco, California, USA

Trademark law may not be changing, but its application certainly has and will continue to do so. Brands are increasingly global, which opens up new possibilities for companies… but also new trademark issues and potential pitfalls. The online experience adds to this global focus and changes the interaction between brands and consumers dramatically.

IQPC’s Trademark Infringement & Litigation Summit will address the topics that you grapple with on a daily basis, including:

  • How business and infringement concerns guide strategic registration and vigilance
  • Methods of enforcing your mark, including a “soft approach,” ICANN dispute resolution, cancellation and opposition
  • Litigation and enforcement management
  • Evolving company domain name strategy

Perhaps the biggest benefit of attending, however, is the practical, frank conversation about the legal and business choices involved in protecting and maintaining your brand. Attend the Trademark Infringement & Litigation Summit to work through these issues with your colleagues.

Do not miss your opportunity to network and engage with top in-house and outside counsel working in the area. Register today!

NOTE: IQPC plans on making CLE credits available for the state of California (number of credits pending).  In addition, IQPC processes requests for CLE Credits in other states, subject to the rules, regulations and restrictions dictated by each individual state.  For any questions pertaining to CLE Credits please contact: amanda.nasner@iqpc.com.