IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Results for "Fair use limitations"
Subscribe to Results for "Fair use limitations"'s Posts

UK Court of Appeal Increases FRAND Rate, Applies It Outside Limitations Period

by | Aug 1, 2024 | ,

The UK Court of Appeal found that the UK High Court of Justice applied flawed reasoning in setting a global fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate for a patent portfolio essential to 3G, 4G and 5G cellular technologies. Interdigital Tech Corp. et al. v. Lenovo Group Limited, Case Nos. CA-2023-001489; -001492 (July 12, 2024) (Arnold, Nugee, Birss, LJ.) The Court of Appeal not only concluded that a higher rate was appropriate but applied the rate to sales prior to the limitations period.

In March 2023, the High Court issued its decision in InterDigital v. Lenovo, concluding that Lenovo should pay InterDigital a FRAND rate of $0.175 per cellular unit for a worldwide license to InterDigital’s portfolio. The High Court also found that Lenovo should pay the FRAND rate for all previous unlicensed sales, even if those sales occurred before the statutory damages limitation period. The High Court calculated that the $0.175 rate yielded a lump sum payment from Lenovo to InterDigital of $138.7 million for sales from 2007 to the end of 2023. The High Court’s FRAND rate determination was closer to Lenovo’s offered rate of $0.16 per unit than to InterDigital’s demand of $0.498 per unit. Both parties appealed.

Lenovo argued that the High Court wrongly found that Lenovo should pay a royalty for sales made outside of the six-year limitation period. The Court of Appeal disagreed, finding that the statute of limitations period has no role to “play in a determination of FRAND terms between (necessarily) a willing licensor and a willing licensee.” The Court of Appeal explained that a willing licensor would not “refuse to pay whatever license fees were eventually determined to [be] applicable” to products outside the limitations period and would not be considered willing if it refused. The Court of Appeal concluded that a willing licensee would not try to benefit from delay in agreeing FRAND terms or payment of FRAND royalties and, therefore, would pay with respect to all past units. From a policy perspective, the Court of Appeal noted that there should not be an incentive for the licensee to delay negotiations to minimize the amount it should be required to pay.

InterDigital challenged the per unit rate set by the High Court, including the rate derived from one of the comparable licenses and the adjustments made to reflect Lenovo’s position vis-à-vis the licensee. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court’s rate determination was internally inconsistent because it found that InterDigital had been forced to heavily discount past sales and this aspect was not FRAND while also declining to make any correction to the blended rate that had been derived from the license to account for non-FRAND factors. The Court of Appeal also found that the High Court did not properly justify rejecting InterDigital’s allocation of the lump sum paid by the licensee between past sales and future sales, which would have led to a higher rate.

The Court of Appeal conducted a detailed review of the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

De Minimis Defense Doesn’t Protect Minimal Use of Concededly Infringing Material

by | Sep 23, 2021 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a copyright case based on a “minimal usage” or de minimis use defense. Richard N. Bell v. Wilmott Storage Services, LLC, et al., Case Nos. 19-55882, -56181 (9th Cir. July 26, 2021) (Wardlaw, J.) (Clifton, J., and Choe-Groves, J., concurring).

Richard Bell took a photo of the Indianapolis skyline and published it on various websites. Eleven years later, he registered the photo with the US Copyright Office. Bell later conducted an online reverse image search of his photo to identify potential infringers and subsequently filed more than 100 copyright infringement lawsuits. One of the sites on which Bell found the photo was VisitUSA.com. The image was only available to those who had conducted a reverse image search or knew the precise web address to the photo. Wilmott Storage Services purchased VisitUSA.com in 2012. In 2018, Bell notified Wilmott that it was displaying the photo without his permission. Wilmott removed the photo in response to Bell’s request. In 2019, Wilmott continued to display a copy of the photo, but at a slightly different address than before. Wilmott explained that its webmaster was supposed to remove the photo but instead only changed the file name. Wilmott subsequently removed the photo.

Bell sued Wilmott for copyright infringement in 2018, asserting that Wilmott infringed his right to “display the copyrighted work publicly” by making it accessible to the public on Wilmott’s server. Assuming infringement, Wilmott filed for summary judgment based on the affirmative defenses of de minimis use, fair use and the statute of limitations. The district court granted summary judgment to Wilmott on the de minimis use defense. Although Wilmott conceded that an identical copy of the photo was hosted on its server, the district court found no infringement. Bell appealed.

The Ninth Circuit noted that it had not previously addressed the issue of whether one “publicly displays” a work where it is accessible only to members of the public who either possess the specific pinpoint address or who perform a particular type of online search—here, a reverse image search. Applying Ninth Circuit precedent from Perfect 10, the Court concluded that Wilmott publicly displayed the photo.

The Ninth Circuit also found that there was no place for an inquiry into whether there was de minimis copying because the “degree of copying” was total since the infringing work was an identical copy of the copyrighted photo. The Court explained that it and a majority of other circuits do not view the de minimis doctrine as a defense to infringement but rather as an answer to the inquiry whether an infringing work and copyrighted work are substantially similar so as to make the copying actionable. The Court reiterated that the de minimis defense applies to the amount of copying, not to the extent of the defendant’s use of the infringing work. The Court also explained that the de minimis copying defense is [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Injunctive Relief Available Even Where Laches Bars Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition Damage Claims

by | Aug 12, 2021 |

The US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed a district court’s conclusion that laches barred an advertising and marketing company’s claims for monetary damages for trademark infringement and unfair competition, but remanded the case for assessment of injunctive relief to protect the public’s interest in avoiding confusion between two similarly named companies operating in the advertising sector. Pinnacle Advertising and Marketing Group, Inc. v. Pinnacle Advertising and Marketing Group, LLC, Case No. 19-15167 (11th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) (Branch, J.)

Pinnacle Advertising and Marketing Group (Pinnacle Illinois) is an Illinois-based company and owner of two registered trademarks including the name “Pinnacle.” Pinnacle Illinois learned of a Florida-based company operating under almost the same name that was also in the advertising and marketing space—Pinnacle Advertising and Marketing Group (Pinnacle Florida) —through potential clients and a magazine’s accidental conflation of the two unrelated companies. Several years later, Pinnacle Illinois sued Pinnacle Florida for trademark infringement, unfair competition and cybersquatting. Pinnacle Florida filed a counterclaim seeking to cancel Pinnacle Illinois’s trademark registrations and also alleged that Pinnacle Illinois’s claims were barred by the doctrine of laches.

Following a jury trial, the district court granted Pinnacle Florida’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Pinnacle Illinois’s cybersquatting claim. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Pinnacle Illinois on its claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition, awarding Pinnacle Illinois $550,000 in damages. The district court then granted Pinnacle Florida’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on its laches defense, concluding that Pinnacle Illinois’s trademark infringement and unfair competition claims were barred by laches because it waited more than four years to bring suit after it should have known that it had a potential infringement claim against Pinnacle Florida. The district court also cancelled Pinnacle Illinois’s registrations because it concluded that Pinnacle Illinois’s marks were merely descriptive and lacked secondary meaning. Pinnacle Illinois appealed.

Pinnacle Illinois argued that the district court abused its discretion in finding that Pinnacle Illinois’s claims were barred by laches, and that even if laches did bar Pinnacle Illinois’s claims for money damages, the district court should have considered whether injunctive relief was proper to protect the public’s interest in avoiding confusion between the two companies. Pinnacle Illinois also argued that the district court erred when it cancelled its registrations without regard to the jury’s findings of distinctiveness and protectability or the presumption of distinctiveness afforded to its registered marks.

The 11th Circuit found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that laches barred Pinnacle Illinois from bringing its trademark infringement and unfair competition claims for monetary damages. Pinnacle Illinois sued after the Florida four-year statute of limitations had passed, and the Court found that the company was not excused for its delay because it did not communicate with Pinnacle Florida about the infringement until it filed suit. Pinnacle Florida also suffered economic prejudice because it invested significant time and money, including around $2 million, in developing its business under [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Fairness Is the Limit for Asserting False Advertising Claims

by | Feb 11, 2021 |

Addressing whether Lanham Act claims for false advertising or false association under § 43(a) (15 USC § 1125(a)) are subject to a statute of limitations, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the sole time limit on bringing such claims is the equitable doctrine of laches. Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, Case No. 18-2183 (4th Cir. Feb. 2, 2021) (Floyd, J.)

The facts of the underlying dispute are straightforward. Bayer has sold the pain reliever naproxen as FLANAX in Mexico since 1972 and in the United States as ALEVE. Belmora began selling naproxen under the name FLANAX in the United States in 2004, where it used similar packaging and described the drug as one sold successfully in Mexico. Both companies tried to register the mark with the US Patent & Trademark Office, where proceedings unfolded. Ultimately, in April 2014, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancelled Belmora’s trademark registration, finding that Belmora had blatantly misused FLANAX by drawing on the popularity of Bayer’s Mexican product. Two months later, Bayer brought claims against Belmora under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and California unfair competition law in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The suit was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia, where Belmora moved to dismiss, arguing that § 43(a) and state law claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Bayer replied that § 43(a) had no statute of limitations, and that the time to bring the state law claims had been tolled during the Board’s proceedings. The district court granted both of Belmora’s motions, and the appeal followed.

Because there is no express statute of limitations for a § 43(a) claim, the question before the Court was whether to assume that Congress intended that the most analogous state law statute of limitations apply, or to apply either the most analogous federal statute or common law laches doctrine. “Conclud[ing] that § 43(a) is one such federal law for which a state statute of limitations would be an unsatisfactory vehicle for enforcement,” the Court held that laches was more appropriate, for primarily two reasons. First, the statutory text provides that § 43(a) damages are subject to the principles of equity, which would include the doctrine of laches. Second, the Court found persuasive the law of the Third, Seventh and Ninth Circuits, which each apply laches as to restrict the timeliness of as § 43(a) action. That said, the Court emphasized that on remand, the district court should consider the period for bringing a similar state action as part of the laches analysis, especially because the Fourth Circuit employs a presumption that claims brought after the expiration of the most-analogous statute-of-limitations are barred by laches.

The Court noted that Bayer could overcome a presumption of laches, and cited three factors for the district court to consider:

  • Bayer’s knowledge (or lack thereof) of Belmora’s adverse use
  • Whether Bayer’s delay was inexcusable or unreasonable
  • Whether Belmora had been unduly prejudiced by [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

NO FAKES Act Would Create Individual Property Right to Control Digital Replicas

by | Aug 8, 2024 |

On July 31, 2024, a bipartisan group of US senators introduced the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act of 2024 to protect the voice and visual likeness rights of individuals from unauthorized use in the form of digital replicas, including digital replicas created by generative artificial intelligence (AI). The bill was introduced by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) and follows a discussion draft released in October 2023. The press release from Senator Coons’ office makes note of the many organizations that support the proposed legislation and includes quotes from representatives of SAG-AFTRA, the Recording Industry Association of America, the Motion Picture Association, OpenAI, IBM and Creative Artists Agency.

Designed to protect all individuals (not just celebrities), the bill defines a digital replica as a newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual and that is embodied in a sound recording, image, audiovisual work or transmission in which the actual individual did not perform or appear, or a version of such work in which the fundamental character of the performance or appearance has been materially altered. The bill would grant each individual or right holder the right to authorize the use of their voice or visual likeness in a digital replica, which the bill states is a property right. The bill also would establish the characteristics, requirements and duration of the license rights that can be granted in a digital replica. The right to authorize the use of an individual’s voice or visual likeness in a digital replica would not expire upon the death of the individual and would be transferable and licensable (subject to certain time limitations on the post-mortem right and registration requirements with the Register of Copyrights).

The bill would create a civil cause of action for a rights holder against any person that produces or makes available to the public an unauthorized digital replica and would provide for injunctive relief, actual or statutory damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. There would be a limitations period, however, and any civil action would have to be commenced no later than three years after the date on which a rights holder discovered – or with due diligence should have discovered – the violation at issue. The bill provides certain exceptions and safe harbors for the production or use of digital replicas in news, public affairs, sports, documentaries, commentary, criticism, scholarship, satire or parody, or for online services that remove or disable access to unauthorized digital replicas upon receiving a notification from the rights holder.

The bill would preempt any cause of action under state law for the protection of voice and visual likeness rights in connection with a digital replica in an expressive work, except for certain existing state statutes or common law or state statutes regulating sexually explicit or election-related digital replicas.

On August 5, 2024, the US Patent & Trademark Office hosted [...]

Continue Reading



read more

PTAB MTA Pilot Program to the Rescue

by | Aug 1, 2024 |

On review of a final written decision from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board in an inter partes review (IPR), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that all challenged claims were obvious but left open the possibility of the patent owner amending the claims under the Motion to Amend (MTA) Pilot Program. ZyXEL Communications Corp. v. UNM Rainforest Innovations, Case Nos. 22-2220; -2250 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2024) (Dyk, Prost, Stark, JJ.)

ZyXEL Communications petitioned for IPR challenging claims 1 – 4, 6, 7 and 8 of a patent owned by UNM Rainforest Innovation (UNMRI). The patent relates to methods for constructing frame structures in communication systems using orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) technologies. The patent describes a method for constructing a frame structure with two sections, each of which is configured for a different communication system, where the second communication system is used to support high mobility users (i.e., faster moving users).

Before the Board, ZyXEL argued that claims 1 – 4, 6 and 7 were unpatentable in light of two prior art references (Talukdar and Li), and that claim 8 was unpatentable in light of Talukdar and another prior art reference (Nystrom). During the Board proceedings, UNMRI filed a contingent motion to amend if any of the challenged claims were found to be unpatentable. As part of its motion, UNMRI requested preliminary guidance from the Board pursuant to the Board’s MTA Pilot Program. In its opposition to UNMRI’s motion to amend, ZyXEL argued that UNMRI’s amended claims lacked written description support, and in its preliminary guidance, the Board agreed. UNMRI attempted to file a revised motion to amend, but the Board rejected the revised motion and instead permitted UNMRI to file a reply in support of its original motion. It also allowed ZyXEL to file a sur-reply. The Board determined that claims 1 – 4, 6 and 7 were unpatentable, but that claim 8 was not. The Board also granted UNMRI’s motion to amend and determined that the new claims were nonobvious over the prior art of record. Both sides appealed.

With respect to the Board’s decision on the obviousness of claims 1 – 4, 6 and 7, the Federal Circuit found that substantial evidence supported the ruling. UNMRI’s primary argument was that a person of skill in the art (POSA) would not have been motivated to combine Talukdar and Li, but the Court credited the Board’s reliance on ZyXEL’s expert, who demonstrated sufficient motivation to combine the two references.

The Federal Circuit reversed the Board’s finding that claim 8 had not been shown to be obvious, however. The Court noted that while the Nystrom reference may not explicitly state the benefit of the missing limitations, “a prior art reference does not need to explicitly articulate or express why its teachings are beneficial so long as its teachings are beneficial and a POSA would recognize that their application was beneficial.”

Regarding UNMRI’s motion to amend, ZyXEL argued that the Board erred in granting the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

E for Effort? PI Analysis in Trade Secret Suit Riddled With Errors

by | Jun 27, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the granting of a sweeping preliminary injunction (PI) in a trade secret suit against a competitor, finding that the district court’s analysis failed to consider potentially dispositive issues and the requirements of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co., Case No. 24-1137 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2024) (Lourie, Prost, Stark, JJ.) Among other things, the district court:

  • Failed to consider whether the plaintiff’s claims were time-barred.
  • Used an incorrect definition of “trade secret.”
  • Based its irreparable harm analysis on an unsubstantiated fear of a competitor’s potential acquisition of the defendant.
  • Failed to meaningfully assess the balance of harm and the public interest factors.

Insulet and EOFlow are medical device manufacturers that make insulin pump patches. Insulet began developing its OmniPod product in the early 2000s and launched next-generation models in 2007 and 2013. EOFlow began developing its own insulin pump product, the EOPatch, in 2011 and began work on its second-generation product in 2017. Around the time that EOFlow began developing its second-generation device, four Insulet employees joined EOFlow.

In early 2023, Medtronic allegedly started a diligence process to acquire EOFlow. Shortly thereafter, Insulet sued EOFlow for trade secret misappropriation, seeking an injunction to bar all technical communications between EOFlow and Medtronic. The district court granted Insulet’s request, finding that Insulet was likely to succeed on its trade secret claim because EOFlow had hired former Insulet employees who retained Insulet’s confidential documents, and Medtronic’s intended acquisition of EOFlow would cause irreparable harm to Insulet. The injunction broadly prevented EOFlow from “manufacturing, marketing, or selling any product that was designed, developed, or manufactured, in whole or in part, using or relying on the Trade Secrets of Insulet.”

EOFlow appealed the injunction. EOFlow argued that the district court failed to address whether Insulet’s claim was time-barred under 18 U.S.C. § 1836(d) of the DTSA and to consider factors relevant to Insulet’s likelihood of success or meaningfully assess the balance of harm and public interest factors.

The Federal Circuit first observed that the district court had expressed no opinion regarding EOFlow’s § 1836(d) statute of limitations (SoL) argument, even though Insulet’s compliance with the SoL was a material factor that would significantly impact Insulet’s likelihood of success. This alone constituted an abuse of discretion meriting reversal.

The Federal Circuit found that even if the district court had addressed the SoL, the injunction was not adequately supported. The Federal Circuit explained that the district court had improperly and broadly defined “trade secret” as “any and all Confidential Information of Insulet,” where “Confidential Information” was defined by the district court to mean any materials marked “confidential” as well as any CAD files, drawings or specifications. The Federal Circuit explained that the district court should have required Insulet to define the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets with particularity. Instead, the district court allowed Insulet to “advance a hazy grouping of information” and stated that “it would be unfair to require at [...]

Continue Reading



read more

A Lesson in Laches: You Waited Too Long to Start Your Kar

by | May 2, 2024 |

After the district court, on remand, held that laches did not bar relief, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit again determined that the district court abused its discretion by not properly applying the presumption in favor of laches and issued an order to vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss a charity’s trademark infringement claims with prejudice. Kars 4 Kids Inc. v. America Can!, Case Nos. 23-1273; -1281 (3rd Cir. Apr. 17, 2024) (Bibas, Porter, Fisher, JJ.)

Kars 4 Kids and America Can! Cars for Kids are charities that sell donated vehicles to fund children’s education programs and have been engaged in a trademark dispute since 2003. Both parties have alleged federal and state trademark infringement, unfair competition and trademark dilution over their respective KARS 4 KIDS and CARS FOR KIDS trademarks. The parties were last before the Third Circuit in 2021, when the Court held that America Can was first to use its CARS FOR KIDS trademark in Texas, and Kars 4 Kids waived any challenge to the validity of America Can’s marks. In that 2021 decision, the Third Circuit also vacated the district court judgment in part and remanded the case for the district court to reexamine its laches and disgorgement conclusions, which had been decided in favor of America Can.

The Lanham Act does not contain a statute of limitations. Instead, it subjects all claims to the principles of equity. To determine whether laches bars a claim, a court considers two elements: whether the plaintiff inexcusably delayed in bringing suit, and whether the defendant was prejudiced as a result of the delay. With respect to the burden of proof for the laches claim at issue, America Can and Kars 4 Kids agreed that their Lanham Act claims were properly analogous to New Jersey’s six-year fraud statute. Therefore, because America Can first discovered the Kars 4 Kids trademark in Texas in 2003 and did not bring counterclaims until 2015, America Can was subject to a presumption that its claims were barred by laches unless it was able to prove both that its delay in filing suit was excusable and that it did not prejudice Kars 4 Kids.

On the issue of delay, the Third Circuit found that the district court erred because it did not find that America Can met its burden of establishing that its delay in bringing suit was excusable and that a reasonable person in its shoes would have waited to file suit. Instead, the district court improperly placed the burden on Kars 4 Kids to establish whether its advertisements in Texas were viewed by a sufficient number of Texans so as to put America Can on notice. As the Third Circuit explained, this was error. The district court should have held America Can to the burden of persuasion to show that it was not sufficiently aware of Kars 4 Kids’s use of its mark in Texas and to show what it did to identify and stop any potentially [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Missed Shot: Lawsuit Against Related Company Doesn’t Toll Prescriptive Period

by | Oct 12, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to dismiss claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA), finding that a dispute against a related company did not toll the statute of limitations. Carbon Six Barrels, LLC v. Proof Research, Inc., Case No. 22-30772 (5th Cir. Sept. 29, 2023) (Clement, Elrod, Willett, JJ.)

Proof Research and Carbon Six Barrels both manufacture gun barrels made of carbon fiber. Proof was the first of the parties to enter the market and in 2013 trademarked the unique mottled appearance of its barrels. In 2016, Proof discovered that Carbon Six intended to manufacture and sell similar-looking carbon-fiber barrels and sent a cease-and-desist letter. Carbon Six began production in 2017, sourcing barrel blanks from its sister company McGowen Precision Barrels. Proof filed a trademark infringement suit against McGowen, instead of Carbon Six, in the District of Montana. McGowen initiated a separate proceeding in the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board to cancel Proof’s trademark and was successful in doing so.

After the Board cancelled Proof’s trademark, Carbon Six sued Proof in the Middle District of Louisiana alleging that Proof fraudulently registered its trademark, violated LUTPA, and defamed Carbon Six during the initial litigation and Board proceeding. McGowen brought a similar suit in the District of Montana. Proof asserted several defenses in the lawsuit filed by Carbon Six, including a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that Carbon Six’s claims were both untimely and legally insufficient. The district court denied Proof’s other defenses but granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, finding that Carbon Six’s claims were time-barred by Louisiana’s one-year prescriptive period and that Carbon Six’s LUTPA claim was also legally insufficient. Carbon Six appealed.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed, explaining that LUTPA has a one-year prescriptive period and that there was no doubt that the violations alleged by Carbon Six occurred more than a year before Carbon Six filed suit in early 2022. The Court reviewed all actions that could potentially give rise to liability under LUTPA and stated that even if any of these acts could give rise to liability, all actions occurred more than a year before Carbon Six’s suit.

Carbon Six attempted to rely on the continuing tort doctrine, alleging that the acts continuously violated LUTPA up until the Board cancelled Proof’s trademark in May 2021. Reviewing Louisiana law, the Fifth Circuit determined that the general principle of a continuing tort is a conduct-based question “asking whether the tortfeasor perpetuates the injury through overt, persistent, and ongoing acts.” The Court agreed with the district court that LUTPA’s prescriptive period is not suspended if a perpetuator of fraud fails to correct false statements, as that proposition would transform almost every business dispute into a continuing tort. The Fifth Circuit also determined that the district court’s conclusion that Carbon Six could not recover for Proof’s lawsuit against McGowan was correct, because the law supported the position that a sister corporation cannot sue on behalf [...]

Continue Reading



read more

A Single Picture Database Is Worth a Thousand Statutory Damages Awards

by | Jun 22, 2023 |

In the latest appeal of a copyright infringement dispute, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s finding that the copyright owner’s photographs were not part of a single compilation for purposes of awarding statutory damages. VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., Case Nos. 22-35147; -35200 (9th Cir. June 7, 2023) (McKeown, Fletcher, Gould, JJ.)

VHT is a professional real estate photography studio that real estate brokerages and listing services hire to photograph properties. VHT retouches the photographs, saves them in its photo database and licenses them to its clients for marketing purposes. In 2015, VHT sued Zillow for copyright infringement based on Zillow’s display of VHT photographs on its real estate listing website and on its Digs home design website. The district court found that Zillow was not liable for displaying VHT photographs on its real estate listing website or for displaying untagged, unsearchable VHT photographs on its Digs home design website. However, the district court found that Zillow’s display of tagged, searchable VHT photographs on Digs constituted infringement and that the searchability functionality was not fair use.

The parties cross-appealed, and the Ninth Circuit considered the issue of infringement in a 2019 decision (Zillow I). In this prior appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that Zillow’s display of VHT photographs on its real estate listing website was not copyright infringement, while Zillow’s display of searchable VHT photographs on its Digs home design website constituted infringement and was not fair use. The Ninth Circuit also reversed the jury’s finding that Zillow had willfully infringed 2,700 searchable VHT photographs displayed on Digs and remanded for consideration of whether the searchable photographs were a compilation for purposes of awarding statutory damages. On remand, the district court found that the photographs were not a compilation and awarded statutory damages of $200 for each innocently infringed photograph and $800 for each remaining photograph.

The district court also considered the impact of the Copyright Act’s preregistration requirement and Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street (Supreme Court, 2019) on VHT’s ability to sue. In accordance with Ninth Circuit precedent holding that registration is made when the Copyright Office receives a completed registration application, VHT had sued Zillow for copyright infringement after applying for copyright registration. However, the works were not registered until after the suit was filed. Just 11 days before Zillow I was decided, in Fourth Estate, the Supreme Court held that registration is made when the Copyright Office has registered a copyright after examination—not when the application is filed. Zillow argued that VHT’s claims should be dismissed because VHT did not satisfy the preregistration requirement. The district court excused the exhaustion requirement because dismissal would result in a massive waste of resources. The parties again cross-appealed.

Preregistration and Fourth Estate

Addressing the preregistration issue, the Ninth Circuit agreed that dismissal was not required. The decision to excuse compliance with a non-jurisdictional exhaustion requirement is based on whether the claim is wholly collateral to the substantive [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES