Ninth Circuit Archives - The National Law Forum

Ninth Circuit Rules Against Apache in Dispute Over Sacred “Oak Flat” Site

On March 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with a lower court decision denying an Apache interest group’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the transfer of copper-rich federal land to private company Resolution Copper.

Oak Flat, a piece of land that the Ninth Circuit acknowledges is “a site of great spiritual value to the Western Apache Indians,” has been at the center of the dispute largely due to the significant copper ore deposits it sits on. Through the Land Transfer Act, Congress directed the federal government to transfer the land to Resolution Copper, which would then mine the ore. Apache Stronghold sued the government, seeking an injunction against the land transfer on the ground that the transfer would violate its members’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), and an 1852 treaty between the United States and the Apaches. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that Apache Stronghold was unlikely to succeed on the merits on any of its three claims before the court.

First, the Ninth Circuit found that under the Supreme Court’s controlling decision in Lyng. There, the Supreme Court held that while the government’s actions with respect to “publicly owned land” would “interfere significantly with private persons’ ability to pursue spiritual fulfillment according to their religious beliefs,” it would also have no “tendency to coerce” them “into acting contrary to their religious beliefs.” The Ninth Circuit also found that the transfer of Oak Flat for mining operations did not discriminate against nor penalize Apache Stronghold’s members, nor deny them an “equal share of the rights, benefits, and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.”

Second, Apache Stronghold’s claim that the transfer of Oak Flat to Resolution Copper would violate RFRA failed for the same reasons because “what counts as ‘substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion’ must be understood as subsuming, rather than abrogating, the holding of Lyng.”

Finally, the court ruled that Apache Stronghold’s claim that the transfer of Oak Flat would violate an enforceable trust obligation created by the 1852 Treaty of Sante Fe because the government’s statutory obligation to transfer Oak Flat abrogated any treaty obligation.

The case demonstrates the difficulty Tribes have in stopping major development projects on federal land on religious grounds.

Non-Negotiable Arbitration Agreements May Be Required as a Condition of Employment

On February 15, 2023, the Ninth Circuit struck down AB 51, a California statute that imposed criminal and civil penalties against employers who required employees to enter into an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment, finding the statute to be an “unacceptable obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives” of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. v. Bonta, et al., No. 20-15291 (9th Cir. 2023).

As discussed in our prior post and articles (link here), in August 2022 the Ninth Circuit withdrew its prior decision, which had upheld portions of AB 51, following the United States Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana.

AB 51, embodied in California Labor Code §432.6 effective January 1, 2020, prohibited an employer from entering into a non-negotiable agreement that required the employee to waive “any right, forum, or procedure” for a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act or the California Labor Code, including “the right to file and pursue a civil action.” Further, AB 51 imposed harsh penalties for employers who violated the statute, including a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months’ imprisonment, as well as the potential for civil litigation by the State of California or by private individuals. In an effort to avoid Supreme Court decisions striking down state laws that improperly targeted arbitration agreements, the California legislature also created the confusing outcome that potentially criminalized the formation of non-negotiable arbitration agreements, but permitted their enforcement once executed.

Noting that arbitration agreements by their very nature require parties to waive their rights to bring disputes in court, and crediting the plaintiffs’ evidence that the possible imposition of civil and criminal penalties deterred employers from attempting to enter into non-negotiable agreements with employees, the court affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction in favor of several trade associations and business groups who sought to block the implementation of the statute. Relying on principles of preemption and judicial precedent striking down similar state laws or judge-made rules that singled out executed arbitration agreements, the Court found AB 51 improperly “burden[s]” the formation of arbitration agreements in violation of the FAA.

Having written the previous 2-1 decision upholding AB 51, Judge Lucero now found himself dissenting. Arguing that the majority “misconstrue[d] the jurisprudence” of the Supreme Court, the dissent claimed that arbitration was permissible only if consensual and that AB 51 only applied to conduct occurring prior to the formation of the contract and thus was not an obstacle to the objectives of the FAA.

Employers may require their California employees to sign non-negotiable arbitration agreements to obtain or maintain their employment. Arbitration agreements may still be unenforceable however if they are procedurally and substantively unconscionable, if the agreement lacks mutual consent because a party was forced to sign by threats or physical coercion or “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” Thus, employers should review their agreements to ensure they are in compliance with other California requirements, that the terms are not unfair or one-sided, and, the agreement presented is not unfair, surprising or oppressive.

Article By Sheryl L. Skibbe of Vedder Price

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

Update Alert on Mickelson v. PGA Tour, Inc.

On August 16, 2022, we prepared an alert discussing Mickelson v. PGA Tour, Inc. and the claims made by suspended PGA Tour players (“Player Plaintiffs”) against PGA Tour, Inc. (“Tour.”) Quite a bit has transpired in the past three weeks both in and out of the courtroom. This alert highlights new developments that stem from an amended complaint that was filed in the US District Court, Northern District of California on August 26, 2022 (the “Amended Complaint.”)

The Amended Complaint can be found here and the original alert can be found here.

The Amended Complaint removes several Player-Plaintiffs listed as plaintiffs in the original complaint. Originally, the Player Plaintiffs were comprised of the following eleven golfers: Abraham Ancer, Bryson DeChambeau, Taylor Gooch, Matt Jones, Jason Kokrak, Phil Mickelson, Carlos Ortiz, Pat Perez, Ian Poulter, Hudson Swafford, and Peter Uihlein. Per the Amended Complaint, four of the original Plaintiff Players have been removed as plaintiffs, namely: Abraham Ancer, Jason Kokrak, Carlos Ortiz, and Pat Perez.^[1] As a result, only seven of the eleven original Player Plaintiffs remain as Player Plaintiffs.

Perhaps the most significant development in the case is that LIV Golf has been added as a Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint. The Amended Complaint generally reiterates allegations made by the Player Plaintiffs (together with LIV Golf, collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) in the original complaint and incorporates LIV Golf’s alleged harm, mainly, that the Tour’s efforts made to prevent LIV Golf’s entry into the elite professional golf market forced LIV Golf to delay and restructure its 2022 launch plans and required LIV Golf “to pay excessively higher guaranteed payments to recruit a number of marquee players than would be required in a competitive market.”

Three more claims were added to the Amended Complaint, for a total of eight claims brought by the Plaintiffs. The first new claim alleges that Tour has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by monopolizing the market for promotion of elite professional golf events (which is in addition to the Section 2 claim in the original complaint that alleges that the Tour maintains a monopoly on elite event services.) In addition to the now three antitrust claims brought in the Amended Complaint, LIV Golf also brought separate tortious interference claims of contractual relationships and prospective business relationships. The antitrust claims and the tortious interference claims are based on the premise that the Tour’s exclusionary actions: (i) prevent competition for the promotion of golf entertainment among stakeholders, such as broadcasters, players (via the Media Rights Regulation), vendors, sponsors, advertisers, partners, and agencies, and (ii) interfere with LIV Golf’s ability to negotiate and enter into contracts with those stakeholders.

Key Observations

Although more than one-third of the original Player Plaintiffs have withdrawn from Mickelson v. PGA Tour, Inc., the addition of LIV Golf as a plaintiff elevates the lawsuit because it brings the very public rivalry between the Tour and LIV Golf to the courtroom. The circumstances surrounding the case are also rapidly evolving. Since the order denying Player Plaintiffs Talor Gooch, Hudson Swafford, and Matt Jones’s motion for temporary restraining order (“TRO”) issued on August 9, 2022, six Tour members (most notably world number 2 Cameron Smith) have joined LIV Golf, which amounts to nearly half of the major winners since 2016 and 26 of the world’s top 100 golfers that have now signed with LIV Golf. In addition, the Tour announced various rule changes for the 2023 PGA Tour season, including increased purse winnings, bonus pools, and elevated events. It remains to be seen whether these circumstances will materially alter the arguments made throughout the TRO proceedings.

The tentative date to hear dispositive motions (such as summary judgment) has been scheduled for July 23, 2023, and the jury trial date is expected to begin on January 8, 2024.

FOOTNOTES

^[1] Pat Perez was the only player who directly provided the reason for his withdrawal: “I didn’t really think it through… I did it to back our guys,” he reportedly said. He also said that he does not have “ill will” towards the Tour and emphasized his content of playing for LIV Golf.

Article By Richard L. Brand, Thomas R. Castiello, Brian D. Schneider, and Anjelica L. Fuccillo of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more entertainment, art, and sports legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Federal District Court Says Pre-Shift COVID Screening Time Not Compensable

In the first reported decision we’ve seen addressing the issue head on, a federal district court in California dismissed a putative collective action claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) seeking payment for time spent in pre-shift COVID screening.

Prior to clocking in each day, the plaintiff—a non-exempt truck driver whose job duties included loading and transporting automobile parts from a central distribution center to stores throughout southern California—was required to submit to COVID-related health screening conducted on his employer’s premises. During the screening process, a company employee asked the plaintiff a series of questions and took the plaintiff’s temperature. The total time spent in the screening process often exceeded five minutes, which included waiting time.

The plaintiff filed a collective action claim, contending that the time spent by him and other employees participating in the daily screening was compensable under the FLSA.

Starting with the premise that time spent in pre-shift activities is only compensable under the FLSA if it is “integral and indispensable” to the employee’s “principal activities or activities which [the] employee is employed to perform,” the district court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss the FLSA claims, noting:

A pre-shift COVID screening is not the “principal activity or activities which [the] employee is employed to perform.” 29 U.S.C. § 254(a)(1). O’Reilly did not hire the employees to undergo health screenings, but instead to load and transport products to stores…. [T]he pre-shift COVID screenings were not “integral and indispensable” to the employees’ duties because the screening was not an intrinsic element of the loading and transporting of products to the stores. The screenings were not indispensable to the employees’ duties because O’Reilly could eliminate them completely without hindering the employees’ ability to perform their duties…. A pre-shift COVID temperature check and short questions regarding exposure do not share the required nexus with Plaintiff’s duties of retrieving automotive parts and delivering them to auto part stores to make the screening a compensable activity that is integral and indispensable to those activities.

Notably, the court referenced—and then distinguished—the U.S. Department of Labor’s COVID-19 and the Fair Labor Standards Act Questions and Answers, which were issued during the height of the pandemic and which many employers felt were ambiguous on the issue of which COVID-related activities were and weren’t considered “hours worked” under the FLSA:

Unlike the nurse in the DOL example whose principal job duty is to keep patients healthy and has direct patient contact, Plaintiff’s principal activities consisted of manual labor and transportation of auto parts to stores.

We examined those agency Q&As—and the broader issues around compensability of time spent in vaccination, testing, and screening activities—in an earlier blog.

The decision is Pipich v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2022).

Article By Allan S Bloom of Proskauer Rose LLP

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

Ninth Circuit Reverses Class Certification Order Because Liability Issues, Not Merely Damages, Were Individualized

The Ninth Circuit recently addressed an issue that tends to arise frequently in class certification motion practice: how trial courts should apply the predominance requirement where appellate decisions have said that the need to calculate individualized damages generally is not sufficient on its own to defeat class certification, but some putative class members likely have no damages. On these types of issues, plaintiffs often try to characterize defendants’ arguments in opposition to class certification as raising mere “damages issues” that can be addressed individually at the end of a class case, and defendants often respond that the issues they raise go to liability, not merely damages, and in any event the damages trials would be too complicated and impractical. The Ninth Circuit recently clarified that if determining liability requires highly individualized inquiries, a class should not be certified, and any individualized damages trials would have to be feasible.

In Bowerman v. Field Asset Services, Inc., Nos. 18-16303, 18-17275, — F.4th –, 2022 WL 2433971 (9th Cir. July 5, 2022), the plaintiffs contracted with the defendant to perform preservation services on properties being foreclosed on. They claimed that they should have been classified as employees rather than independent contractors under California law, and therefore should have been paid overtime and reimbursed for business expenses. The district court certified a class, decided certain issues on partial summary judgment in favor of the class, and left for a later damages trial whether a class member worked overtime (and to what extent) and whether the class member was entitled to reimbursement for business expenses (and the amount thereof).

The Ninth Circuit reversed the class certification order. It explained that “We need not decide whether common evidence can prove that [defendant] has a uniform policy of misclassifying its vendors” because “[defendant’s] liability to any class member for failing to pay them overtime wages or to reimburse their business expenses would require highly individualized inquiries on whether that particular class member ever worked overtime or ever incurred any ‘necessary’ business expenses.” (Emphasis in original.) The plaintiffs had “mischaracterize[d] an issue of individualized liability as an issue of individualized damages.” (Emphasis in original.) The Ninth Circuit explained that if the question involves the existence of damages, that is a liability issue, not a damages issue.

The Ninth Circuit also concluded that, under its interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013), the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that damages were “capable of measurement on a classwide basis” because they could not “show that the whole class suffered damages traceable to their alleged misclassification as independent contractors,” even if the amounts of those damages would need to be proven individually. In addition, determining damages would require “excessive difficulty” because there was little documentary evidence, and “using the individual testimony of self-interested class members to calculate the overtime hours they worked and the business expenses they incurred isn’t easy.” In a bellwether trial conducted by the district court, eight trial days had been required to determine damages for a sample of only eleven class members.

This decision helpfully clarifies the perennial debate between what constitutes a “damages” issue versus a “liability” issue. As I’ve often written on this blog, it can be helpful to think about the class certification analysis by analyzing how the named plaintiffs’ or putative class members’ claims would be tried in an ordinary individual case, and what evidence the defendant would be entitled to introduce. Here, the bellwether trial helped the Ninth Circuit determine that this case could not be litigated on a class basis.

Article By Wystan M. Ackerman of Robinson & Cole LLP

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

Even in the 9th Circuit, merely conveying contaminated groundwater isn’t “transportation” of a “solid waste”

Just before the July 4th holiday, two Judges on a Ninth Circuit panel reversed their earlier conclusion that conveying contaminated groundwater can give rise to RCRA liability for the “transportation” of a “solid waste”. The panel now agrees that the City of Vacaville’s mere conveyance of drinking water contaminated by someone else is not something Congress intended to criminalize (or make subject to civil penalties) in RCRA.

The two Judges reiterated their view that the contaminated groundwater does fall within RCRA’s definition of “solid waste”.

This case first caught my attention in January after the panel’s first bite at this apple. (See https://insights.mintz.com/post/102hg8l/overturning-the-9th-circuit-vaca…).

I guess it is progress that the panel has corrected one of its two mistakes. But to suggest that conveying groundwater containing parts per billion of anything is the transportation of a solid waste is completely unfaithful to the language of RCRA as the panel has now recognized with respect to the definition of “transportation” but not the definition of “solid waste”.

It bears repeating that the water the City is providing to the residents of Vacaville reportedly meets all applicable federal and state standards, including those established under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, and the State of California has stringent standards of its own. It is those laws, and not the federal law having to do with the transportation and disposal of solid waste, that should apply.

As I wrote in January, if we think those laws, or any of our other federal and state environmental laws, need improving, we should lobby our elected officials to improve them. But stoking the fears of an already cynical citizenry that our federal, state and local governments aren’t doing their job isn’t worth whatever citizen suit plaintiffs might stand to gain from misusing the laws that we do have.

“RCRA’s context makes clear that mere conveyance of hazardous waste cannot constitute ‘transportation’ under the endangerment provision,” writes Judge Patrick J. Bumatay in the new ruling, joined by District Judge Douglas L. Rayes, sitting on the 9th Circuit by designation.

Article By Jeffrey R. Porter of Mintz

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

Full Ninth Circuit Removes Unwarranted Hurdles to Class Certification in Big Tuna Antitrust Case

Court delivers a necessary course correction in the law of class certification.

There was reason for optimism in August 2021, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc of a 2-1 decision that would have made it more difficult for antitrust claimants to secure class certification. The three-judge panel in Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 993 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2021) had determined that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) required a district court to find that no more than a de minimis number of class members are uninjured before a class may be certified. Having announced this de minimis rule in its opinion, the court then took the unusual step of inviting the parties to argue whether the full court should rehear the issue en banc.

As we wrote last year when en banc rehearing was granted, with its de minimis rule, “the panel really jumped the median strip.” We argued that the rule conflated the question of whether issues common to the class predominate over issues unique to individual class members with the question of how the class is defined and that the Ninth Circuit’s new and unrealistic de minimis requirement erected an unnecessary procedural hurdle to class certification. Other commentators and amici argued that requiring proof that all but a de minimis number of class members are injured requires a determination on the merits, impermissible at the class certification stage.

In welcome news for claimants and attorneys who bring antitrust class actions, the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc decided against the de minimis rule, for all of the foregoing reasons, in Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop., Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, No. 19-56514, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9455 (9th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022).

In a thorough review of the requirements for class certification under Rule 23, the Ninth Circuit held that the movant’s burden is to prove the prerequisites of Rule 23 by a preponderance of the evidence, bringing the Ninth Circuit in line with the law in the First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits. As for the predominance requirement of a Rule 23(b)(3) class, the court cited In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305, 311 (3d Cir. 2008) as amended (Jan. 16, 2009), to hold that, when assessing whether a plaintiff has proven that a common question related to a central issue in the claim predominates, a district court is limited to resolving whether the evidence establishes that a common question is capable of class-wide resolution, not whether the evidence in fact establishes that plaintiffs would win at trial.”

In rejecting the de minimis rule, the court began with the notion that class-wide proof is not required for all issues. Thus, the need for individualized assessment of a class member’s damages does not preclude a court from certifying a class. It contradicts this notion to require proof of injury of not more than a de minimis number of class members.

The presence of uninjured class members, the court held, does not defeat predominance. Predominance is defeated only where the class members cannot rely on the same body of common evidence to establish the common issue.

The presence of a large number of uninjured class members, however, could require a district court to consider whether the class definition is “fatally overbroad.” The remedy in that case, the court said, is to “redefine the overbroad class to include only those members who can rely on the same body of common evidence to establish the common issue.” “[T]he problem of a potentially ‘over-inclusive’ class,” the court said, “can and often should be solved by refining the class definition rather than by flatly denying class certification on that basis” (citation and internal quotation omitted).

With that, the Ninth Circuit reversed the three-judge panel and affirmed the certification of the classes by U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino of California’s Southern District*, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the methodology employed—statistical regression analysis and other expert evidence—”was capable of showing that a price-fixing conspiracy caused class-wide antitrust impact.” [*Judge Sammartino subsequently recused herself and the case was reassigned to Chief Judge Dana Sabraw.]

The 9-2 decision was written by Circuit Judge Sandra S. Ikuta. In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee said as much as a third of the class members were unharmed. This is a “victory to plaintiffs” who will now be able to settle the action without having to prove their case trial, he said.

The suit was brought by direct purchasers of tuna products, indirect purchasers of bulk-sized tuna products, and individual end purchasers against the owners of Bumble Bee Foods LLC (currently in Chapter 11), StarKist Co., and Chicken of the Sea—which sell more than 80 percent of the packaged tuna in the United States. The industry has also been investigated by the Department of Justice in recent years, resulting in criminal guilty pleas by industry executives for participating in a price-fixing conspiracy.

Nothing in Rule 23 suggests that the presence of more than a de minimis number of uninjured class members affects whether questions affecting only individual class members predominate.

The now vacated de minimis rule conflates impact with damages and the predominance inquiry with potential overbreadth in the class definition. The Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision is a model of clear thinking and a welcome course correction in the law of class certification.

Article By Dan Mogin and Jonathan Rubin of MoginRubin

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

Apple Smartwatch Antitrust Case Survives, Showing ‘Freedom of Design’ is Not Absolute

Judge Cites ‘Associated’ Anticompetitive Conduct Claims

It’s a case that challenges the limits of the “freedom of design” usually enjoyed by companies accused of product design changes alleged to harm competition. Ordinarily, a design change is not the kind of conduct that runs afoul of the antitrust laws, but on March 21, U.S. Judge Jeffrey S. White from the Northern District of California denied Apple Inc.’s motion to dismiss an antitrust case brought against it by AliveCor Inc. The suit alleges that Apple unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the market for heart rate analysis apps by updating WatchOS, the Apple Watch operating system on which AliveCor’s heart rate analysis app runs. (AliveCor, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 21-cv-03958-JSW, N.D. Calif.).

Heart rate analysis apps analyze the user’s heart rate in real time using a sensor close to the user’s wrist and determine whether the user’s heart rate is normal or irregular. The app runs constantly while the device is worn and alerts the user when a situation arises requiring an ECG recording and medical analysis. AliveCor also sells an electrocardiogram-capable wrist band for the Apple Watch and related WatchOS software that analyzes reading from the band. AliveCor claims that its products—the ECG-wristband hardware and software and its heart rate analysis app—“helped change the perception of the Apple Watch from an accessory to a personal health monitoring tool.”

AliveCor calls its heart rate monitoring app “SmartRhythm.” According to AliveCor, when sales of SmartRhythm took off Apple was inspired to announce an update to WatchOS with its own heart monitoring app designed to exclude AliveCor from the U.S. market for WatchOS heart rate analysis apps.

SmartRhythm works by using data from the Apple Watch’s heart rate algorithm. According to the complaint, Apple’s update to WatchOS altered the heart rate algorithm in a way that prevents third-party developers from being able to detect heart rate fluctuations and irregularities. As a result of these changes, SmartRhythm could not provide accurate heart rate analysis, and AliveCor removed it from the market.

Consequently, Apple is a monopolist in the WatchOS heart rate analysis app market, which AliveCor claims Apple is maintaining with exclusionary design changes to WatchOS, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and Section 17200 of California Business and Professions Code.

The court denied Apple’s motion to dismiss AliveCor’s monopolization claim in what it characterized as the “[single brand] aftermarket for WatchOS apps.” Applying the factors enumerated by the court in Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2008), the court found that the WatchOS app aftermarket was wholly derivative from the primary smartwatch market, the alleged restraint applied only to the aftermarket, Apple’s aftermarket power was not obtained through contract terms reached in the primary market, and that competition in the smartwatch market does not discipline anticompetitive practices in the WatchOS app aftermarket. Accordingly, the court ruled that AliveCor’s market definition met the Newcal standards for a “single product” relevant market.

Apple argued that a company that improves a product to the benefit of consumers does not violate antitrust laws “absent some associated anticompetitive conduct,” citing the leading “freedom of design” case of Allied Orthopedic Appliances Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group LP, 592 F.3d 991, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010). The court quoted the holding of Allied: “If a monopolist’s design change is an improvement, it is necessarily tolerated by the antitrust laws, unless the monopolist abuses or leverages its monopoly power in some other way when introducing the product.”

Apple argued that its update to WatchOS was purely a design change that benefitted users, with no associated anticompetitive conduct. It observed that AliveCor hadn’t established that consumers use Apple’s app instead of some third-party app, or that Apple rejected any third-party apps, or that no other third-party heart apps are available to Apple Watch users. But the court rejected those arguments, noting that Apple failed to provide any legal authority that would require such allegations.

Apple ignored AliveCor’s allegations that Apple abused or leveraged its monopoly power “in some other way” by changing its heart rate algorithm to make it effectively impossible for third parties to inform a user when to take an ECG. AliveCor contended that Apple’s updated heart rate algorithm, which was pushed out to all earlier Apple Watch models, did not improve user experience. Its purpose was to prevent third parties from identifying irregular heart rates and offering competing apps based on that data. “These allegations present the type of ‘associated conduct’ that makes product design changes cognizable under antitrust law. Plaintiff’s allegations plausibly establish that Apple’s conduct was anticompetitive,” Judge White held. A case management conference set for May 20.

Commentary

It is truly difficult to see how some separate, “associated” conduct by Apple other than its design change to WatchOS violates Section 2. It seems more straightforward to consider the design change itself to be a cognizable anticompetitive act. It may be time to drop the fiction maintained in Allied v. Tyco that design changes are “never” antitrust violations unless accompanied by some “other” conduct. Here, Apple has created the market itself in the form of an OS platform used by millions of consumers who depend on it to access all manner of competing complementary products. Under those circumstances, it should be uncontroversial to hold a platform operator liable under the antitrust laws for design changes that exclude competitors or foreclose participants from the market, without indulging in the fiction of “associated” conduct.

Article By Jonathan Rubin of MoginRubin

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

So You Wanna Play with Copyright? “Joyful Noise” Ostinato Isn’t Original Expression

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s order vacating a jury award of damages for copyright infringement and granting judgment as a matter of law, explaining that the musical work alleged to have been copied did not qualify as an original work of authorship but consisted only of “commonplace musical elements.” Marcus Gray PKA Flame et al. v. Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson PKA Katy Perry et al., Case No. 20-55401 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2022) (Clifton, Smith, Watford, JJ.)

Key Definitions:

A musical scale is a sequence of musical notes or tones by pitch.
A subset of seven notes is called the minor scale and can be referred to with alphabetic names (A, B, C, etc.) or scale degrees (1, 2, 3, etc.).
An ostinato is a repeating musical figure (for example, 3-3-3-3-2-2).

In 2007, Marcus Gray (Flame) purchased an ostinato and used it in the song “Joyful Noise.” The song was released in 2008. While “Joyful Noise” did not achieve significant commercial success or airtime, it received millions of views online. In 2013, American singer-songwriter Katy Perry created “Dark Horse,” which was a hit, resulting in her performance at the Super Bowl halftime show in 2015.

The “Joyful Noise” ostinato consists of notes, represented as 3-3-3-3-2-2-2-1 and 3-3-3-3-2-2-2-6, whereas Dark Horse’s ostinato contains 3-3-3-3-2-2-1-5. Both have a uniform rhythm and equal note duration in time.

Plaintiffs sued Perry and her co-defendants for copyright infringement. Plaintiffs presented circumstantial evidence that the defendants had a reasonable opportunity to access “Joyful Noise” and that the ostinatos in both songs were substantially similar. Plaintiffs did not present direct evidence that Perry and the others had copied elements of the song, instead relying on testimony from their expert musicologist, Dr. Todd Decker.

Decker testified that the ostinatos were similar in many aspects, but he also testified that there was no single element that caused him to believe the ostinatos at issue were “substantially similar” when viewed “in isolation.” The jury also heard testimony from Perry’s expert, who disagreed altogether that the ostinatos were substantially similar.

The jury found that the defendants had a reasonable opportunity to hear “Joyful Noise” before composing “Dark Horse,” that the two songs contained substantially similar copyrightable expression and that “Dark Horse” used protected material from “Joyful Noise.” The jury found the defendants liable for copyright infringement and awarded $2.8 million in damages. The district court vacated the award and granted judgment as a matter of law to defendants, concluding that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to show that the “Joyful Noise” ostinato was a copyrightable original expression. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Ninth Circuit explained that because the plaintiffs did not present any direct evidence that the defendants copied the “Joyful Noise” ostinato, they were required to show that the defendants had access to the work and that the ostinatos were substantially similar.

The Ninth Circuit began with its analysis of the “substantially similar” prong, employing a two-part test having “extrinsic” and “intrinsic” components. The Court noted that while it must refrain from usurping the jury’s traditional role of evaluating witness credibility and weighing the evidence, the extrinsic test requires that the Court ensure that the evidence of objective similarities between two works is legally sufficient to serve as the basis of a copyright infringement claim, regardless of the jury’s views. The Court explained that the substantial similarity test focuses on the protectable elements standing alone and disregards non-protectable elements.

To be a protectable element under copyright law, the “Joyful Noise” ostinato had to qualify as “original expression.” Based on the trial record, the Ninth Circuit found that the “Joyful Noise” ostinato consisted entirely of commonplace musical elements, and that the similarities between the two ostinatos did not arise out of an original combination of these elements. Without original expression, no element identified by Flame was individually copyrightable. For example, the Court noted that “the fact that Joyful Noise and Dark Horse both make use of sequences of eight notes played in an even rhythm is a trite musical choice outside the protection of copyright law.”

Finding the evidence presented at trial legally insufficient to establish that the musical elements were individually copyrightable, the Ninth Circuit determined that the jury’s verdict finding defendants liable for copyright infringement was unsupported by substantial evidence. Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law.

Article By Jodi Benassi of McDermott Will & Emery

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

What You Don’t Know Can’t Hurt You: SCOTUS Rules Inadvertent Legal Errors Cannot Overturn Copyright Infringement Decisions

“No harm, no foul.” That was the message the U.S. Supreme Court delivered Feb. 24 in ruling that a copyright infringement verdict should not have been overturned because of inaccurate information in the copyright registration asserted. The Court’s 6-3 opinion vacates a Ninth Circuit decision that threw out an infringement verdict on the ground that the registrant should have known the law regarding filing multiple works within one registration, a practice referred to as group registrations.

In Unicolors Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP, a jury found that Unicolors’ fabric pattern copyrights were violated and the district court entered judgment for H&M to pay nearly $800,000 for selling jackets that infringed on Unicolors’ copyrights. H&M moved for judgment as a matter of law that Unicolor’s copyright registration was invalid because for group registrations, all works in the applications must be published “in the same unit of publication.” Unicolor released some of the garments containing the protected patterns to private customers, and released the others to the public at a different time. Thus, the asserted registration did not technically satisfy the requirements. The district court denied H&M’s motion and found that safe harbor provision of the Copyright Act allows for innocent mistakes of fact and law. In this case, Unicolor was not aware that all works in a group registration had to be published “in the same unit of publication.”

The Ninth Circuit overturned this ruling, siding with H&M that Unicolors’ copyright registration was invalid because of legal errors in the application, saying a safe harbor provision for copyright registration errors only applies to factual mistakes, not unintentionally misreading the law. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, pushed back on this idea:

“In our view, however, §411(b) does not distinguish between a mistake of law and a mistake of fact. Lack of knowledge of either fact or law can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration,” he wrote.

Justice Breyer also noted that many copyright applicants are often “novelists, poets, painters, designers, and others without legal training” and said Congress never intended to make it more difficult for those non-attorneys to successfully apply for a copyright. “Given this history, it would make no sense if §411(b) left copyright registrations exposed to invalidation based on applicants’ good-faith misunderstandings of the details of copyright law,” he said.

The Supreme Court’s decision is s a victory for creators’ rights and provides some peace of mind for those creators filing copyright applications without the assistance of an attorney. However, this decision will focus discovery on whether any errors in a registration—be them factual or legal—were made “with knowledge that [the error] was inaccurate.”

Article By Laura A. Kees and Jacob S. Wharton with Womble Bond Dickinson LLP.

For more articles about the U.S. Supreme Court, visit the NLR Litigation section.

Tag: Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Rules Against Apache in Dispute Over Sacred “Oak Flat” Site

Like this:

Non-Negotiable Arbitration Agreements May Be Required as a Condition of Employment

Like this: