Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 08 - Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
CHAPTER 08
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
I. OBJECTIVES
This chapter is designed to acquaint students with the law of intellectual property, certain
"commercial" or "competitive" torts, and the law of unfair competition as represented by § 43(a)
of the Lanham Act. See the Learning Objectives that appear near the beginning of the chapter.
The material on competitive torts can be treated separately, along with the other intentional torts
discussed in Chapter 6. Competitive torts are addressed in this chapter because they reflect the
general theme of unfair competition, as do the other doctrines and rules discussed in the chapter.
II. ANSWERS TO INTRODUCTORY PROBLEM:
A. Trademark
B. Patent, but only if requirements of patentability are met.
C. Copyright, though trademarks may be used in the commercial.
D. Copyright, usually; patent available if requirements are met.
E. Trademark
F. Trade secret, if kept secret; possibly patent if requirements are met.
G. Trademark
H. Patent, if requirements are met.
I. Trade secret, if kept secret.
J. Copyright
K. Trademark (trade dress variety)
III. SUGGESTIONS FOR LECTURE PREPARATION
A. Introduction
Stress the two policy justifications that individually or together underlie most of the topics
discussed in the chapter:
1. The idea that free competition can be carried to such an extreme as to discourage the
creativity and innovation such competition induces; and
2. The idea that certain minimum standards of ethical competitive behavior should be
upheld, quite apart from their ability to encourage creativity and innovation.
The introductions to most of the major sections in the chapter should suggest which
policy predominates in the area to be studied. Note that a different rationale--preserving
consumers' ability to identify favored products and services--helps justify trademark law.
B. Patents
1. Describe the meaning of patent protection in general terms and state the policy rationale
underlying such protection.
a. With the enactment of America Invents Act (AIA), the U.S. made major changes in
certain aspects of patent law. The AIA took effect in March 2013. Chapter 8’s
discussion of patent law reflects the current provisions, now that the AIA has taken
effect.
b. Who is entitled to a patent? Is it the first to invent, or is it the first to file? Note that
historically, the U.S. adhered to a first-to-invent rule in determining who is entitled to
a patent. This approach ran contrary to what many other nations do. They instead
8-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 08 - Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
have tended to go with a first-to-file approach. With the AIA (see the above
paragraph), the U.S. moved from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-file system in
March 2013. Note the implications and likely effects of this change.
2. Briefly note the types of patents that may be awarded (see p. 266), but emphasize that the
text focuses on utility patents. With regard to the "what is patentable?" question:
a. You might distinguish a process (a means devised for the production of a given
result) from a machine (a distinctive means--basically an apparatus--for
accomplishing a given result). Other examples of a composition of matter
(another category of potentially patentable subject matter) are a pharmaceutical
product, alloy, and a new food product. You might also note that an improvement
may be patentable even if it relates to already patented subject matter, so long as the
tests of novelty, utility, and nonobviousness are met. (Those tests are discussed
later.)
b. Stress that laws of nature and natural phenomena are not patentable, even if they
were previously unknown and were only recently discovered. The law-of-nature
disqualification from patentability has received considerable attention from the
Supreme Court in recent years. Note, for instance, the Mayo v. Prometheus Labs
decision (discussed at p. 266), in which the Court held that a certain drug-dosage
correlation test was not, under the circumstances, a patentable process but was
instead merely a law of nature. Although applications of laws of nature may
sometimes be patentable, the particular test at issue in the case did not qualify as
such an application. Note the effect when a patent has not been obtained or has
been invalidated: others are generally free to engage in copying. Continuing with
the law-of-nature prohibition on patentability, consider Association for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the text case discussed immediately
below.
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (p.267): The
Supreme Court holds the Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) should not have
granted patents arising from the discovery of the precise location and sequence of
human genes that would substantially increase a patient’s risk of breast or ovarian
cancer. The genes and propensity for increasing a patient’s cancer risk
constituted a law of nature and a naturally occurring phenomenon. Hence, patents
were not available to those who isolated the relevant genes and discovered their
health significance.
Points for Discussion: Walk the students through basic facts here, without
digging too deeply into the science (unless, of course, you have a fairly extensive
background regarding the latter). Ask why Association for Molecular Pathology
and other plaintiffs sued the patent owner (Myriad). (They wanted a declaratory
judgment to the effect that if they developed tests for the particular genes
supposedly covered by Myriad’s patents, they would not be infringers because
the patents shouldn’t have been granted in the first place.) Note that the plaintiffs are
arguing the same things they would have argued if they had developed such tests
and Myriad had sued them for infringement. They would then have made the
arguments that the patents were invalidly granted. By seeking a declaratory
judgment, the plaintiffs jumped the gun on Myriad and hoped to obtain what they
ultimately received: a ruling that wiped out Myriad’s patents. Ask the students
what the Court’s decision means for developers of tests regarding the genes
isolated by Myriad. (They received what amounts to a green light to do so.)
8-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 08 - Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
Aren’t patents supposed to provide incentives to create and innovate? Didn’t
Myriad make a great discovery? (Yes, to both questions.) So why is there the
law of nature prohibition? (Do we really want those who discover previously
unknown facts to have dibs on what they discovered for 20 years? Would that be
good policy? Note, importantly, that particular applications of the law of nature
that Myriad discovered could be patent-eligible, whether the applications are
developed by Myriad or by someone else.
c. The Supreme Court has held that practical applications of mathematical
principles may merit patent protection. This ruling helped paved the way for an
eventual decision by the PTO that certain computer programs may be patentable.
Mere abstract ideas, however, are not patentable.
d. Regarding the patentability of certain business methods, note the controversy that
has resulted from a 1998 decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit held that business methods could qualify for patent protection.
For example, Amazon obtained a patent on its “one-click” online shopping
method, though the validity of the patent was contested in litigation. Critics have
argued that the U.S. Patent Office has granted business method patents too
readily in recent years, and that patents are improperly being issued for business
methods amounting only to “dressed-up” (frequently “Internet-ized”) versions of
long-used methods. In Bilski v. Kappos (formerly a text case, but now Problem
#7), the Supreme Court focused on how to determine whether a business method
is patentable and disappointed some observers who hoped that the Court would
interpret the Patent Act as not permitting patents on business methods.
Discussion of Bilski appears below. It is followed by discussion of a text case,
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, in which the Supreme Court applied Bilski.
Bilski v. Kappos: The U.S. Supreme Court holds that the “machine or
transformation” test is not the exclusive test for whether a business method is
patentable, and that the particular method at issue in the case (a method for
hedging against risk in energy price fluctuations) was not patentable.
Points for Discussion: Begin by providing a sense of the history of patentability
of business methods and the controversy that has attended the issue since the late
1990s. (See the above background.) Note what the business method in the case
involved, and what was contemplated by the “machine or transformation” test
that the Federal Circuit held to be the exclusive test for patentability of business
methods. Why do the students think the Federal Circuit regarded that test as the
exclusive one? Was it a nod to critics of the conclusion that business methods
could be patented? Might it have been a way of limiting the number of patentable
business methods without admitting that the court had been wrong in the 1998
decision that said business methods could be patented? As for the Supreme
Court’s decision, some critics of the notion that business methods are patentable
hoped that the Court would go well beyond its actual holding in the case and rule
that business methods simply are unpatentable. Instead, the court issued a more
limited ruling, though one suggesting that business method patents shouldn’t be
routinely granted even though they may be granted. What does the Supreme
Court say about the “machine or transformation” test? (That it may be useful to
apply, but that neither the language of the Patent Act nor the objectives
underlying it suggest that the machine or transformation test is the exclusive one
to be used when the patentability of a process was to be determined.) Why,
according to the Court, was the business method at issue in the case
unpatentable? (Because it was merely an abstract idea placed in the form of a
8-3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 08 - Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
mathematical formula. It was thus an approach that should be fair game for all to
use.)
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (p. 269): The Supreme Court holds that a
computer-implemented scheme for implementing settlement risk by using a
third-party intermediary amounts to an abstract idea and is therefore ineligible for
a patent. The Court therefore ruled that the patents at issue in the case were
invalid.
Points for Discussion: The Court traced a number of cases in which laws of
nature, naturally occurring phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable, and
the reason why those prohibitions appear in the Patent Act. Bilski (see above)
was among the decisions the Court cited and discussed. The reasoning and result
in Bilski led logically to the Court’s conclusion that the Alice patents at issue also
amounted to abstract ideas and thus were unpatentable. Although the Court
stressed that applications of abstract ideas may sometimes be patentable, simply
taking an abstract idea and saying “apply it with a computer” does not pass
muster under the Patent Act. Is that what was called for by the patents at issue?
(Yes, according to the Court.) Did the decision in Alice go as far as critics of
business method patents might have liked the Court to go? (No, because the
Court did not issue a sweeping ruling stating that business methods are
unpatentable.) But did the Court indicate that business method patents are likely
to receive fairly careful scrutiny when the validity is questioned? (It would
appear so.) Note, too, that those who are concerned about so-called patent trolls
(see the text’s later discussion at p. 276) probably enjoyed the fact that Alice’s
patents were ruled invalid. Alice, after all, had not obtained the patents in the
first instance; rather, Alice was an assignee of others’ patents.
e. In explaining the novelty requirement, note its overarching focus on whether the
invention is truly new and different from what has gone before in the relevant field.
Note that the novelty inquiry includes the before-application test outlined at p. 271.
List the things that, if they occurred prior to the filing of the patent application, will
disqualify the applicant from obtaining a patent. See p. 271. But be sure to note the
one-year window exception explained at p. 271. Walk the students through this
exception and stress its most common application: to the situation in which the
inventor begins public sale of the invention before filing the patent application. The
public sale constitutes a public disclosure of the invention, but the inventor can still
obtain a patent if the patent application is filed within a year after the public sale
commenced.
f. Discuss the nonobviousness requirement and what it contemplates. KSR v. Teleflex
(a former text case that is now Problem #1) is an excellent vehicle for doing so.
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.: The Supreme Court reversed the Federal
Circuit’s judgment that a claim in Teleflex’s patent over placement of an electronic
sensor mechanism in an automobile accelerator pedal was nonobvious. In reversing,
the Supreme Court held that even though the prior art had not specifically “taught,
suggested, or motivated” Teleflex’s inventor to put the sensor on a fixed pivot point,
the solution would nonetheless have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
area. The Court therefore saw merit in the defendant’s contention that Teleflex’s
patent was invalid.
Points for Discussion: When does an invention become obvious--and therefore
unpatentable--in light of the prior art? In rejecting the “teaching, suggestion,
8-4
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 08 - Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
motivation” test applied by the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court seemed to want to
reorient the obviousness test in a more pragmatic direction. Fixating on the fact that
the prior art had not specifically “taught” Teleflex’s inventor where to place the
sensor distracted from the real point of an obviousness analysis: namely, whether
Teleflex’s solution to the problem would have been apparent to persons of ordinary skill
in the field. Has the Supreme Court’s decision in this case made the
nonobviousness requirement a more difficult hurdle for patent applicants to clear?
Probably so. One other thing to note regarding this decision is that an effect of the
America Invents Act is to change the time frame of the nonobviousness inquiry. Until
March 2013, obviousness or nonobviousness was determined in regard to the time of
creation of the invention (i.e., what was obvious as of that time?). Under the AIA, the
relevant time is the time of filing of the patent application (i.e., what was obvious as of
then?).
3. The rights held by a patent owner are sweeping in nature, as the discussion in the text
indicates. They are effectively monopoly rights, though for a limited time. Note the mid-
1990s change in the law regarding the duration of utility patents (changing from 17 years
from the grant of the patent to 20 years from the filing of the application). Design patents
have a different duration, however. See p. 272 of the text.
4. Explain patent law’s exhaustion doctrine (also called the first sale doctrine), which
provides that the sale of an item embodying a patented invention exhausts the patent
owner’s rights over that particular item. Bowman v. Monsanto Co., the text case
discussed immediately below, involved a farmer’s unsuccessful attempt to invoke the
exhaustion doctrine as a shield against patent infringement liability. Your students may
have heard of the case, because the media reported fairly extensively on it.
Bowman v. Monsanto Co. ( p.272): The Supreme Court holds that the exhaustion
doctrine did not protect Bowman, a farmer, against patent infringement liability to
Monsanto.
Points for Discussion: What did Bowman do? Have the students summarize the basic
facts. Be sure they understand why purchasing soybeans from a grain elevator seemed to
him an attractive way to go for purposes of growing his second crop of the season.
(Those soybeans almost certainly had been grown from patented Roundup-Ready seeds,
they almost certainly were still Roundup-Ready to a considerable extent, and they were
much cheaper than buying more Roundup-ready seeds from a Monsanto licensee.) Of
course, the second-crop-of-the-season part of Bowman’s plan is what is problematic. But
hadn’t the soybeans he purchased from the grain elevator already been the subject of a
sale. So why doesn’t the exhaustion doctrine (the first-sale doctrine) apply with regard to
those soybeans and protect Bowman against infringement liability? (Because the
exhaustion doctrine only ends a patent owner’s rights regarding the particular copies or
items at issue—here, the previously sold soybeans. It does not entitle a person in
Bowman’s position to reproduce the patented invention in additional copies or items.
The latter is what Bowman did.) What would happen to Monsanto’s patent rights if lots
of farmers began doing what Bowman did? No doubt the Supreme Court was thinking
along those lines. Ask the students what they think about the bug guy versus little guy
flavor of this case. That flavor probably helped generate much of the media attention
given to the case. The Supreme Court, however, appeared to regard this case as an easy
one to decide.
5. Note that the shop-right doctrine discussed in the text (see p. 274) refers only to the
employer's license to use the patent, not to patent ownership. The other two rules
discussed at this point deal with patent ownership.
8-5
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 08 - Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
6. Note the doctrine of equivalents and its key role in many patent infringement cases of a
direct infringement nature. Emphasize the traditional formulation of the test used for
whether an allegedly infringing use by the defendant involves substantial equivalence to
the patented invention. Note also that there may be liability in appropriate cases for
inducing patent infringement or for contributory infringement.
7. Briefly note the remedies available to successful plaintiffs in patent infringement cases.
Mention that even though injunctions remain a standard and frequently imposed remedy
in such cases, they are not a mandatory remedy.
8. With regard to defenses, emphasize the two obvious ways to defend against a patent
infringement claim: arguing that the alleged infringement does not fall within the
subject-matter of the patent; and attacking the patent by arguing that it should not have been
granted.
9. A new section added for the 16th edition (see p. 266) summarizes other major changes
brought about by the America Invents Act. Note what that section says about actions
taken—and not taken—by Congress in the AIA.
C. Copyright
1. Regarding the original works of authorship protected by copyright law:
a. Note that originality is not the same thing as uniqueness or the novelty required for a
patent. Rather, to be original, the copyrighted matter must only be original to the author
(i.e., the author's own work). A good example is a hypothetical situation in which
Composer B writes a song that is quite similar to an earlier copyrighted song written by
Composer A, with Composer B's having neither heard nor otherwise had access to
Composer A's song. Composer B is entitled to copyright protection for his song, just as
Composer A is entitled to copyright protection for her song.
b. Another example of the distinction between ideas, etc. and the form in which they are
expressed is the difference between the theory of relativity and a book on that subject.
c. A photograph is an example of a copyrightable depiction of pure fact involving
originality and creativity. The photographer would have exercised judgment in making
decisions on such matters as where to stand when taking the picture, how to position the
persons or things shown in the picture, and what type of film (color or black and white) to
use.
d. Students may be surprised to learn that the copyright on a work does not protect the
work's title. (This point is not mentioned in the text.) This helps explain why there are
various songs, books, and other copyrighted works with the same or very similar titles.
Some--though clearly not all--work titles may be protected under trademark law or under
§ 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
2. Regarding copyright formalities, stress that registration is not needed for a copyright to
exist. Copyright protection exists once the original work of authorship has been created
and fixed in a tangible medium. Registration, however, is usually a prerequisite to filing
a suit for infringement. Although the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988
amended copyright law to make notice no longer mandatory, use of notice still affords
some advantages. For example, if proper notice is present, the defendant in an
infringement case usually cannot reduce the actual or statutory damages described later
by claiming that the infringement was innocent. In addition, use of notice may furnish
the practical benefit of "scaring off" would-be infringers.
3. In discussing copyright duration, be certain to note the effects of the 1998 Sonny Bono
Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA). Any work under valid copyright as of the
October 1998 effective date of the CTEA received an extra 20 years of protection. Of
8-6
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 08 - Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
course, the longer duration contemplated by the CTEA also attaches to works created
after October 1998. Concerning works created in 1978 or thereafter, contrast the basic
rule for determining copyright duration (life of the author plus 70 years, under the CTEA)
with the work-for-hire rule (under the CTEA, 95 years from first publication or 120 years
from creation, whichever comes first). Discuss the circumstances under which the basic
rule would apply, and those under which the work-for-hire rule would apply.
a. Note that if the basic rule governs the duration of the copyright when the work comes
into being, the basic rule still applies even if the author later transfers the copyright to a
legal entity such as a corporation. For instance, the composer of a song may later transfer
the copyright to a music publishing firm. The duration of the copyright is still measured
by the composer's life plus 70 years, even though a corporation now owns the copyright.
b. The basic rule and the work-for-hire rule apply only to works created in 1978 or
thereafter. Huge numbers of pre-1978 works are still governed, in terms of duration, by
the "old" copyright rules discussed in the text. The rules governing pre-1978 works
provided for a 28-year term plus a renewal term (if the proper procedures for renewal
were followed). The renewal term, originally 28 years and later extended to 47 by
Congress, is now 67 years with the enactment of the CTEA. The "old" rules concerning
duration will therefore be with us for many years to come. The renewal aspect of the old
rules sometimes proved to be a trap for the unwary, so Congress scrapped the idea of
renewal when it enacted the duration rules that apply to works created in 1978 or
thereafter.
c. Because of the CTEA, we are still in a 20-year period in which no copyright protection
will lapse and no copyrighted works will pass into the public domain. Not until the year
2018 ends will the flow of works into the public domain again commence. You may wish
to discuss the public policy implications of this state of affairs. Critics of the CTEA have
asserted that the very lengthy copyright durations it establishes are contrary to the spirit
of the "limited times" language in the copyright clause of the U.S. Constitution.
d. In 2003, the Supreme Court decided Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, the case referred to
on p. 277 of the text. In upholding the CTEA against constitutional attack, the Court held
that even though the copyright protection period had become quite lengthy, it was still a
“limited time” for purposes of the Constitution’s Copyright Clause. As for the incentive-
to-create argument, the Court refused to require that each and every copyright enactment
by Congress satisfy the incentive requirement. The focus, instead, is on whether
copyright provisions in general would tend to furnish an incentive to create. Under that
approach, the CTEA passed constitutional muster. Moreover, the Court noted, all
previous copyright duration extensions enacted by Congress had been applied to already
existing works. Although the Court upheld the CTEA, it made comments that raised
questions about the wisdom of the enactment. Justices Breyer and Stevens wrote
vigorous dissents.
4. Provide an overview of the rights possessed by the owner of a copyright and the ways
these rights can be licensed or transferred. Be sure that students understand the difference
between a copyright license and an outright transfer (or assignment) of a copyright. See
p. 278.
American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc. (p. 278): The Supreme Court holds that
Aereo’s method of streaming copyrighted TV programs to paying subscribers violated
copyright owners’ performance rights.
Points for Discussion: Note that most copyright infringement cases that focus on
performance rights (for instance, those involving copyrighted songs) tend to have less
complex facts than this one. Have the students trace the basic elements of Aereo’s plan,
without getting into too many technical details. Suffice it to say that Aereo devised what
it regarded as a way around having to pay the licensing fees that cable networks have to
8-7
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 08 - Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
pay in order to make programming available to their paying subscribers. Of course, then,
Aereo could keep its prices low for its subscribers. Note, but probably only in a general
sense, the Court’s discussion of the Transmit Clause in the Copyright Act and of how a
violation of that clause serves as a violation of copyright owners’ performance right.
Does the Court’s decision have a substance-over-form feel to it? (I.e., Aereo’s form
differs from that of CATV providers (the forerunners of today’s cable networks), but its
substance is the same in terms of the access to copyrighted programs that consumers get).
Does the Court seem to be saying that Aereo’s method achieves the same results cable
companies achieve, that Congress clearly wanted CATV’s (and therefore cable
companies’) actions to be subject to the Copyright Act, and that Congress therefore
would have wanted an Aereo-like method to be subject to the Copyright Act as well?
5. Explain that the Copyright Act includes a provision setting forth the first-sale doctrine
(largely the same doctrine seen in patent law). Start this discussion with basic examples
similar to the textbook example noted at p. 281 of the text. For instance, one who buys a
novel owns that copy of it and can sell or give it to someone else without implicating the
rights of the copyright owner. But the owner of that copy of the novel cannot make
additional copies of it, because doing so would violate the copyright owner’s rights to
make and distribute copies. After such an introduction to the first sale doctrine, discuss
Kirtsaeng, a text case the students are likely to find interesting
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (p. 282): The Supreme Court holds that the first
sale doctrine protects Kirtsaeng against copyright infringement liability to Wiley, the
owner of the copyrights on various books at issue in the case.
Points for Discussion: Ask the students to summarize Kirtsaeng’s profit-making plan.
(He had friends or family members in Thailand purchase copies of Wiley-copyrighted
textbooks that Wiley produced outside the U.S. and intended for distribution outside the
U.S.; the purchasers in Thailand would then ship the copies of the books to Kirtsaeng in
the U.S.; Kirtsaeng would then re-sell those copies in the U.S.; and Kirtsaeng, after
paying those who bought the copies for him in Thailand, would make a good profit.) Ask
why, as a practical matter, this worked for Kirtsaeng. (Because Wiley’s overseas editions
of the books were essentially the same as the U.S. versions but were sold at significantly
lower prices outside the U.S. than were charged in the U.S. for the U.S. versions. Thus,
Kirtsaeng could sell the overseas editions in the U.S. at lower prices than would be
charged for the functionally equivalent U.S. versions.) So, what was the possible hitch in
Kirtsaeng’s plan, which might otherwise seem to be a legally permissible way to take
advantage of the first sale doctrine? Ask students about the Copyright Act’s importation
provision, on which Wiley was relying. That provision states that importation of
coyrighted material into the U.S. without the authorization of the copyright owner
violates the distribution right held by the copyright owner and is therefore infringement.
So what is Wiley arguing? (That the importation provision should control, and that the
Court should harmonize the importation provision and the first-sale doctrine provision by
holding that the first-sale doctrine does not apply when the copies at issue were produced
outside the U.S.) Why did Wiley’s argument fail? (Because the importation provision
says that a violation of it is a violation of the copyright owner’s distribution right, as
outlined in the statutory section dealing with rights of copyright owners, and the statutory
section dealing with the first sale doctrine expressly states that copyright owners’ rights
are subject to the first-sale doctrine. Moreover, the section on the first sale doctrine does
not contain language amounting to a geographic limitation of the sort for which Wiley
was arguing. You may have to walk the students through some of this, but they will get
it.) Note the Court’s expressions of concern about the implications for possible future
cases if the Court were to read a geographic limitation into the section on the first sale
8-8
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 08 - Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
doctrine. Ask, finally, about how this ruling by the Court may affect the overseas
production and sales practices of Wiley (practices that have been common in the
publishing industry).
6. In discussing infringement, explain the elements of access, copying (either deliberate or
subconscious), and substantial similarity. Note the extent to which the copying and
substantial similarity elements tend to overlap.
a. A famous case dealing with subconscious copying is the one in which former Beatle
George Harrison was held liable for infringing the copyright on the song "He's So
Fine." Portions of Harrison's song "My Sweet Lord" reflected substantial similarity
to, and apparent copying from, portions of "He's So Fine." The fact that any copying
by Harrison was not deliberate (i.e., that it was subconscious) did not protect him
against liability. Intent to copy or to infringe is not an element of a copyright
infringement claim.
b. You might also note a recent example that students probably heard about because it
received considerable attention from the media: the 2015 jury decision in favor of
the Estate of Marvin Gaye in the estate’s copyright infringement lawsuit against
Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams. The defendant’s song, “Blurred Lines,”
contained musical expression that was too similar, in the Estate’s view, to Gaye’s
song “Got To Give It Up.” Thicke and Williams supposedly planned to appeal. No
further development had occurred in the case as of the time this manual was
produced.
c. Emphasize that even a quantitatively small amount of borrowing from the
copyrighted work's expression may be enough to constitute infringement--especially
if the borrowed portion was qualitatively significant (e.g., an important, particularly
memorable, or easily recognizable portion of the copyrighted work). Note, also, the
text's statement that a defendant's having paraphrased the original (as opposed to
having used the literal language) is not necessarily a defense. Neither is the
defendant's having cited the copyrighted work as the source. It is not infringement,
however, to "lift" facts, general ideas, themes, and the like from copyrighted works,
because the copyright protects only the expression contained in the work.
d. MGM v. Grokster, a former text case now serving as the basis of the Cyberlaw in
Action box on p. 285, deals with a variety of infringement issues. We include
discussion notes on Grokster in case you wish to devote meaningful class time to it.
MGM Studies, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.: The U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the
inducement theory of copyright infringement liability and remands for further
proceedings, while offering a very strong indication that Grokster and StreamCast
(collectively referred to below as "Grokster") should be held liable for inducing
infringing uses of their software that allowed peer-to-peer file-sharing.
Points for Discussion: This case should generate student interest because of its
relationship to the activity of file-sharing. Both Grokster and the Ninth Circuit's
2001 decision in Napster (cited in Grokster) dealt with attempts to impose
infringement liability on entities other than the direct users of the copyrighted works
at issue. In Napster, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had placed contributory and
vicarious infringement liability on Napster. In Grokster, however, the Ninth Circuit
had said Grokster was not liable. Distinguishing Napster, the Ninth Circuit held that
Grokster's lack of a central server over which it had control prevented the
infringement theories that doomed Napster from being applied against Grokster. The
Ninth Circuit also regarded Grokster as protected by language in the Supreme Court's
Sony decision--language seeming to indicate that a technological advancement could
8-9
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 08 - Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
not be deemed an instrument of infringement if it could be put to substantial
nonfringing uses as well as to infringing uses. The Supreme Court concluded that the
Ninth Circuit's decision in favor of Grokster was erroneous because the Ninth Circuit
failed to recognize that the inducement theory of liability would apply to Grokster.
Ask the students what underlying actions the contributory infringement, vicarious
infringement, and inducement theories all depend on. (Answer: direct infringement
by users of the Napster-like or Grokster-like service.) Note that the direct infringers
need not be named in the lawsuit, but proof of such infringing actions must be
demonstrated in order for contributory or vicarious infringement liability or
inducement liability to even potentially apply. Sometimes of course, direct users
themselves have been sued in recent years by owners of copyrights on songs,
recordings, and movies. Ask why it is that most uses of Napster or Grokster amount
to infringement. What are the elements of contributory infringement? (Knowledge
of infringing activity and material contribution to the occurrence of infringing
activity.) What are the elements of vicarious infringement? (Right and ability to
supervise users' actions and direct financial benefit.) The Supreme Court appears to
acknowledge that Grokster wouldn't be liable under either of these theories, but
strongly indicates that application of the inducement theory would lead to a different
outcome. Ask what area of the law the Supreme Court "borrows" from in
recognizing the inducement theory. (Patent law, where the inducement theory is
well-established.) Ask what must be shown, according to the Supreme Court, in
order for inducement liability to exist? (Intent to promote infringing uses, clear
expressions of that intent, and affirmative steps to promote infringing uses.) Why
would Grokster be subject to inducement liability? (Chiefly, its advertisements and
other promotional efforts--particularly those after Napster had been shut down by
court order--that effectively advocated the use of Grokster's software to engage in
uses of an infringing nature.) Note that the Supreme Court remands without actually
holding Grokster liable, but the message to the lower courts on remand is clear. The
Supreme Court regarded Grokster's unlawful objective as "unmistakable" and
considered the evidence potentially supporting inducement liability to be quite
strong.
Ask the class why the Supreme Court says that the Ninth Circuit erred in holding
that the Sony language about potential for noninfringing uses protected Grokster
against liability. (The Supreme Court says that the Sony language was never meant to
be applied in disregard of evidence clearly indicating the applicability of the
inducement theory. Unlike Grokster, the VCR makers in Sony hadn't engaged in
conduct amounting to inducement. In addition, the evidence in Grokster showed that
an overwhelmingly large percentage of the uses of Grokster's software were
infringing in nature, and that noninfringing uses were very few and very far
between.). Finally, ask about the Grokster-related ethical issues raised in the Ethics
in Action box at p. 293.
8-10
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
