Yves Sicre de Fontbrune owns the copyright in the Zervos Catalog, considered a complete photographic catalog of Pablo Picasso’s artworks and containing more than 16,000 photographs. De Fontbrune successfully sued American art editor Alan Wofsy in France for copyright infringement for reproducing some of the images in two volumes on Picasso. Wofsy continued to use the copyrighted photographs, despite being ordered by the Paris Court of Appeal to stop. De Fontbrune later sued Wofsy to enforce the Paris Court of Appeal astreinte in California under the California Uniform Foreign-Court Monetary Judgment Recognition Act. After the district court granted Wofsy’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, de Fontbrune appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Ninth Circuit framed the issues:
The enforceability of the French award turns on whether, in this case, the astreinte functions as a fine or penalty—which the Uniform Recognition Act does not recognize—or as a grant of monetary recovery—which is statutorily cognizable. The answer to this question is not a simple matter of translation, but, as we explain, requires a broader look at French law to understand the nature of the astreinte remedy in this case, in conjunction with an analysis of California law regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments.
(Opinion pdf page 5).
Continue reading “Enforceability of Foreign Law More Complex Than Mere Translation”
GlobeRanger is a software company that specializes in radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. GlobeRanger RFID solutions focus on inventory management, allowing users to filter, process and store inventory information in real time. Pursuant to a contract through the Department of Defense, GlobeRanger installed RFID technology solutions at three Navy bases. The Navy then decided to consolidate into an enterprise-wide RFID solution to be run from one location. The Navy awarded the contract to Software AG and ordered GlobeRanger to stop its work. GlobeRanger sued Software AG for misappropriating its trade secrets, alleging that Software AG accessed some of GlobeRanger’s data, manuals and software while working on the Navy contract.
GlobeRanger initially filed its lawsuit against Software AG in federal court. Software AG objected, arguing lack of federal court jurisdiction, so GlobeRanger dismissed its federal lawsuit and filed in state court. Software AG then decided that the lawsuit belonged in federal court and removed the case to federal court. The district court denied GlobeRanger’s motion to remand and ruled that GlobeRanger’s misappropriation claims were preempted by the Copyright Act. GlobeRanger appealed that decision to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed and remanded the case to the district court. (GlobeRanger I). Software AG appealed to the Fifth Circuit in the second appeal after a $15 million jury verdict in GlobeRanger’s favor. Software AG argued that GlobeRanger’s trade secret claim was preempted by federal copyright right law, but that even if the trade secret claim was not preempted, the federal court lacked jurisdiction due to the lack of a federal law claim. The Fifth Circuit ruled that GlobeRanger’s trade secret claim was not preempted, but that GlobeRanger’s dropped conversion claim was preempted and supported the required federal jurisdiction.
Continue reading “Trade Secret Misappropriation Defeats Maze of Copyright Preemption Claims”
Electronic Arts (EA) creates a variety of online games, including The Sims. The Sims game includes a gem-shaped icon called a “PlumbBob.” To promote a Collector’s Edition of The Sims, EA contracted with Lithomania to produce a USB flash drive shaped like a PlumbBob. Lithomania contracted with Direct Technologies (DT) to produce a PlumbBob-shaped flash drive prototype. EA approved the prototype created by DT, but Lithomania shipped DT’s prototype to a company in China to make the same flash drives for $0.50 less per drive than DT’s quoted price. Even though DT signed an agreement with Lithomania to produce the flash drives, Lithomania never informed DT that DT lost the deal. DT settled its lawsuit against Lithomania.
DT sued EA for violating the Copyright Act. The district court ruled that DT’s flash drive was not sufficiently original when compared to the PlumbBob icon to qualify for copyright protection and granted EA’s motion for summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court erred by concluding as a matter of law that the flash drive was not copyrightable.
Continue reading “PlumbBob Flash Drive Design May Be Protected by Copyright”
Andrew Leonard photographs stem cells using an electron microscope. Due to the technical skill required, he is one of just a handful of such photographers. Leonard pays a scientific research institution to use its electron microscope. He obtains cell samples from doctors, scientists and researchers. Leonard takes the images in black and white, then uses his artistic judgment to add color to the images.
Stemtech uses distributors to sell the nutritional supplements it formulates. Stemtech distributors sign a contract and must comply with Stemtech’s policies and procedures manual. Leonard licensed two of his stem cell images to Stemtech for limited use. Stemtech failed to pay Leonard the agreed upon licensing fee and exceeded the scope of the license by using the images without a license in its promotional materials. Further, Stemtech allowed some of its distributors to use Leonard’s images on their websites. After Stemtech and its distributors refused to pay Leonard for the unauthorized use of his images, Leonard sued Stemtech and its distributors for copyright infringement. The jury awarded Leonard a $1.6 million verdict against Stemtech on Leonard’s direct, vicarious and contributory infringement claims. The issues on appeal to the Third Circuit were whether the district court should have granted Stemtech’s motion for a new trial on contributory and vicarious liability and damages and whether Leonard should have received prejudgment interest and infringer’s profits.
Continue reading “Stem Cell Photographer’s $1.6 Million Copyright Infringement Jury Verdict Upheld”