Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Gagnon

Last updated
Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Gagnon
Seal of the United States Courts, Ninth Judicial Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Full case nameAsset Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Kevin Gagnon, d/b/a Mister Computer
DecidedSeptember 10, 2008
Case history
Prior action(s)Judge Rudi M. Brewster concluded Gagnon had granted AMS an unlimited license to use, modify, and retain the source code of the programs, which led to the defeat of his copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims.
Case opinions
Judge Milan D. Smith held that contractor Gagnon impliedly granted AMS an unlimited license, thus, AMS could not have misappropriated contractor's trade secret, and non-competition agreements were invalid.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Barry G. Silverman, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and Milan D. Smith, Jr.

Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Gagnon was a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit regarding implied licenses to use, modify and retain the source code of computer programs, and the enforceability of non-competition agreements. The court affirmed the ruling from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California that Kevin Gagnon, a software contractor doing business as "Mr. Computer", had implicitly granted Asset Marketing Systems (AMS) an unlimited license to use, modify and retain the source code of the programs that Gagnon created. [1] The case is notable because the Court held that an implied software license is granted when the licensee requests the creation of a work, the licensor creates and delivers the work, and the licensor intends the licensee to copy and distribute the work.

Contents

Background

Factual background

AMS is a field marketing organization offering sales and marketing support to insurance marketing entities. From May 1999 to September 2003, AMS hired Gagnon, an at-will, independent contractor, to develop custom software to assist with its information technology needs. AMS was Gagnon’s largest client, accounting for $2 million of revenue and 98 percent of his business. From May 2000 through April 2001, AMS and Gagnon entered a Technical Services Agreement, but nothing about a license was mentioned. [1]

AMS claimed that on June 12, 2002, Gagnon signed a Vendor Non-disclosure agreement (NDA) that would have given AMS ownership of all intellectual property developed for AMS by Gagnon. However, Gagnon claimed the document was a forgery. [1]

In June 2003, Gagnon proposed that AMS execute an Outside Vendor Agreement (OVA) to state that all information produced by the contractor would remain property of the contractor, and be licensed to the client on a non-exclusive basis. AMS declined to execute the OVA, but instead countered with a redlined version to read that all information produced by the contractor would be the sole property of the client. The parties never executed the OVA, however. By the end of June 2003, AMS decided to terminate Gagnon's services. AMS extended an employment offer to Gagnon, but Gagnon declined. The two parties then set a target exit date of September 15, 2003. [1]

On September 18, 2003, Gagnon demanded $1.75 million from AMS for the right to continue using the programs, and $2 million for Gagnon's agreement not to sell or disclose the programs to AMS's competitors. [1]

On September 23, 2003, AMS responded by terminating the relationship with Gagnon. AMS's consultant also alleged numerous problems with Gagnon's work. In particular, Gagnon still possessed the source code of the programs and databases that he developed for AMS. Therefore, AMS demanded Gagnon to hand over all copies of the source code immediately, as AMS's trade secrets were allegedly embedded in the software, which AMS argued would preclude any use by Gagnon. [1]

Also on September 23, 2003, seven of Gagnon's 12 employees resigned and began working at AMS to provide directly to AMS the same services they previously provided to AMS through Gagnon. Gagnon contended that each employee had signed a non-compete clause and agreed not to engage in employment with AMS for 24 months without written consent from Gagnon. [1]

In October 2003, Gagnon sent AMS a cease-and-desist letter, claiming that the use of the programs was unauthorized, and demanded AMS to remove "all original and derivative source code" from AMS computers. AMS responded by asserting that Gagnon could not unilaterally stop AMS from using and updating the programs because it had an irrevocable license to use, copy, and modify the programs based on the course of conduct of the parties over the past two-and-a-half years. AMS also stated that Gagnon could not use the programs because it contained AMS's trade secrets. In addition, AMS declined to pay Gagnon the $1.75 and $2 million that Gagnon had requested in September. [1]

Procedural background

The case began when AMS filed a complaint in California state court against Kevin Gagnon, doing business as Mister Computer, two of his employees, and Gagnon’s new company, National Marketing Technologies, alleging, among other things, misappropriation of trade secrets and conversion. Gagnon removed the case to federal court and then filed counterclaims, alleging copyright infringement, unfair competition under California law, misappropriation of trade secrets, interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective business advantage, and negligent interference with prospective business advantage, and seeking accounting and declaratory relief declaring Gagnon the copyright owner of the programs. [1]

Initially, the district court (then Judge Jones) remanded AMS's state-law claims back to the state court. AMS then refiled its remanded state law claims as counter-counterclaims to Gagnon's federal counterclaims. The district court subsequently granted AMS's motion for summary judgment as to Gagnon's counterclaims. The court found that Gagnon had granted AMS an implied, nonexclusive license to use, modify, and retain the source code of the programs. Consequently, Gagnon's trade secret misappropriation claim was also defeated, and because no trade secret existed as between Gagnon and AMS with respect to the source code, Gagnon's noncompetition agreements were deemed invalid under California law. For the same reasons, Gagnon's remaining state law claims failed. [1]

Gagnon also filed an ex parte application requesting a continuance to obtain the backup tapes of AMS's computers because they might contain email evidence establishing AMS's allegedly unlawful solicitation of Gagnon’s employees, and would help establish the location of the source code at all relevant times. However, this request was denied for several reasons. First, the district court had already determined that the non-competition clause in Gagnon's employment agreements was unenforceable under California law, any evidence showing solicitation was irrelevant. Second, since Gagnon had already acknowledged that the source code was located on AMS's computers, providing conclusive evidence proving the location of the source code was unnecessary. Finally, the ex parte application was untimely because Gagnon did not submit it until after the motion for summary judgment was fully briefed by both parties, and the district court declared the case submitted. [1]

The case was then reassigned from Judge Jones to Judge Brewster. At that point, the parties stipulated to dismiss all counter-counterclaims, and AMS moved for attorney’s fees and costs. Gagnon then appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit granted a limited remand so that Judge Brewster could reconsider Judge Jones’s grant of summary judgment. After remand, the district court denied the motion for reconsideration, deferred resolution of attorney’s fees until the resolution of the appeal, and returned the case to the Ninth Circuit. [1]

Claims

Gagnon claimed that AMS's continued use of the six programs constituted copyright infringement because the programs were used by AMS without obtaining a license or Gagnon's permission. AMS claimed to have the right to use the programs and asserted three defenses to Gagnon's copyright infringement claim: an implied license, a transfer of copyright ownership of all intellectual property Gagnon developed via the NDA, and 17 U.S.C.   § 117. Gagnon responded that the NDA was a forged document. [1]

Analysis and holdings

The Ninth Circuit held that although exclusive licenses must be in writing, 17 U.S.C.   § 204, grants of nonexclusive licenses need not be in writing, and may be granted orally or by implication. [2]

The Ninth Circuit thus affirmed the district court, holding that AMS had an implied unlimited, irrevocable license for the computer programs. Although 17 U.S.C. §204 requires that exclusive licenses be in writing, a court will grant an implied license when: (1) the licensee requests creation of the work; and (2) the licensor makes that particular work and delivers it to the requesting licensee. [3] Here, Gagnon conceded that he created the programs specifically for AMS in response to AMS's request and that AMS paid for the work. The court also held that Gagnon delivered the programs when he installed them onto the AMS computers and stored the source code on-site at AMS, and that his intent to deliver was manifested by his conduct, including the executed TSA, the OVA which he submitted, and his ongoing technical support to AMS. [1]

Since Gagnon's interaction with AMS had granted AMS unlimited, nonexclusive authorization to retain, use, and modify the software, the court affirmed that there was neither copyright infringement nor trade secret misappropriation. The court also upheld the district court's ruling that the non-competition agreements were unenforceable because it was unnecessary to protect Gagnon's trade secret due to the unlimited, nonexclusive license. [1]

The Court further affirmed the denial of Gagnon's ex parte motion, holding that Gagnon needed no additional evidence to oppose AMS's summary judgment motion. [4]

Related Research Articles

In computing, source code is any collection of code, with or without comments, written using a human-readable programming language, usually as plain text. The source code of a program is specially designed to facilitate the work of computer programmers, who specify the actions to be performed by a computer mostly by writing source code. The source code is often transformed by an assembler or compiler into binary machine code that can be executed by the computer. The machine code might then be stored for execution at a later time. Alternatively, source code may be interpreted and thus immediately executed.

<i>SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp.</i>

SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., commonly abbreviated as SCO v. IBM, is a civil lawsuit in the United States District Court of Utah. The SCO Group asserted that there are legal uncertainties regarding the use of the Linux operating system due to alleged violations of IBM's Unix licenses in the development of Linux code at IBM. The lawsuit was filed in 2003, it has lingered on through the bankruptcy of SCO Group and the adverse result in SCO v. Novell, and was reopened for continued litigation by order of a new judge on June 14, 2013. Pursuant to the court order reopening the case, an IBM Motion for Summary Judgment was filed based upon the results of the Novell decision. On December 15, 2014, the judge granted most of IBM's motion, thereby narrowing the scope of the case, which remained open. On March 1, 2016, following a ruling against the last remaining claims, the judge dismissed SCO's suit against IBM with prejudice. SCO filed an appeal later that month. In February 2018, as a result of the appeal and the case being partially remanded to the circuit court, the parties restated their remaining claims and provided a plan to move toward final judgement.

<i>MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.</i> Ok Google Ok Google

MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, was a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which addressed the issue of whether the loading of software programs into random-access memory (RAM) by a computer repair technician during maintenance constituted an unauthorized software copy and therefore a copyright violation. The court held that it did, although the United States Congress subsequently enacted an amendment to 17 U.S.C. § 117 to specifically overrule this holding in the circumstances of computer repair.

USL v. BSDi was a lawsuit brought in the United States in 1992 by Unix System Laboratories against Berkeley Software Design, Inc and the Regents of the University of California over intellectual property related to the Unix operating system; a culmination of the Unix wars. The case was settled out of court in 1994 after the judge expressed doubt in the validity of USL's intellectual property, with Novell and the University agreeing not to litigate further over the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD).

A software license is a legal instrument governing the use or redistribution of software. Under United States copyright law, all software is copyright protected, in both source code and object code forms, unless that software was developed by the United States Government, in which case it cannot be copyrighted. Authors of copyrighted software can donate their software to the public domain, in which case it is also not covered by copyright and, as a result, cannot be licensed.

The SCO–Linux disputes were a series of legal and public disputes between the software company SCO Group (SCO) and various Linux vendors and users. The SCO Group alleged that its license agreements with IBM meant that source code IBM wrote and donated to be incorporated into Linux was added in violation of SCO's contractual rights. Members of the Linux community disagreed with SCO's claims; IBM, Novell and Red Hat filed claims against SCO.

<i>SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.</i>

SCO v. Novell was a United States lawsuit in which The SCO Group (SCO), a Linux and Unix vendor, claimed ownership of the source code for the Unix operating system. SCO sought to have the court declare that SCO owned the rights to the Unix code, including the copyrights, and that Novell had committed slander of title by asserting a rival claim to ownership of the Unix copyrights. Separately, SCO was attempting to collect license fees from Linux end-users for Unix code through their SCOsource division, and Novell's rival ownership claim was a direct challenge to this initiative.

Beginning in 2003, The SCO Group was involved in a dispute with various Linux vendors and users. SCO initiated a series of lawsuits, the most known of which were SCO v. IBM and SCO v. Novell, that had implications upon the futures of both Linux and Unix. SCO claimed that Linux violated some of SCO's intellectual properties. Many industry observers were skeptical of SCO's claims, and they were strongly contested by SCO's opponents in the lawsuits, some of which launched counter-claims. By 2011, the lawsuits fully related to Linux had been lost by SCO or rendered moot and SCO had gone into bankruptcy. However the SCO v. IBM suit continued for another decade, as it included contractual disputes related to both companies' involvement in Project Monterey in addition Linux-related claims. Finally in 2021 a settlement was reached in which IBM paid the bankruptcy trustee representing what remained of SCO the sum of $14.25 million.

<i>Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.</i> American legal case

Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that addressed to what extent non-literal elements of software are protected by copyright law. The court used and recommended a three-step process called the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test. The case was an appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in which the district court found that defendant Altai's OSCAR 3.4 computer program had infringed plaintiff Computer Associates' copyrighted computer program entitled CA-SCHEDULER. The district court also found that Altai's OSCAR 3.5 program was not substantially similar to a portion of CA-SCHEDULER 7.0 called SYSTEM ADAPTER, and thus denied relief as to OSCAR 3.5. Finally, the district court concluded that Computer Associates' state law trade secret misappropriation claim against Altai was preempted by the federal Copyright Act. The appeal was heard by Judges Frank Altimari, John Daniel Mahoney, and John M. Walker, Jr. The majority opinion was written by Judge Walker. Judge Altimari concurred in part and dissented in part. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling as to copyright infringement, but vacated and remanded its holding on trade secret preemption.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

<i>Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd.</i> U.S. legal case

Vault Corporation v Quaid Software Ltd. 847 F.2d 255 is a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that tested the extent of software copyright. The court held that making RAM copies as an essential step in utilizing software was permissible under §117 of the Copyright Act even if they are used for a purpose that the copyright holder did not intend. It also applied the "substantial noninfringing uses" test from Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. to hold that Quaid's software, which defeated Vault's copy protection mechanism, did not make Quaid liable for contributory infringement. It held that Quaid's software was not a derivative work of Vault's software, despite having approximately 30 characters of source code in common. Finally, it held that the Louisiana Software License Enforcement Act clause permitting a copyright holder to prohibit software decompilation or disassembly was preempted by the Copyright Act, and was therefore unenforceable.

<i>Jacobsen v. Katzer</i>

Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims on copyright, patent invalidity, cybersquatting, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues arising from Jacobsen under an open source license developing control software for model trains.

Proprietary software, also known as non-free software or closed-source software, is computer software for which the software's publisher or another person reserves some licensing rights to use, modify, share modifications, or share the software, restricting user freedom with the software they lease. It is the opposite of open-source or free software. Non-free software sometimes includes patent rights.

Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F.Supp. 2d 1106 is a case where Google Inc. successfully defended a lawsuit for copyright infringement. Field argued that Google infringed his exclusive right to reproduce his copyrighted works when it "cached" his website and made a copy of it available on its search engine. Google raised multiple defenses: fair use, implied license, estoppel, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act safe harbor protection. The court granted Google's motion for summary judgment and denied Field's motion for summary judgment.

Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. was a 1971 case in which the Delaware Court of Chancery determined that widespread, confidential disclosure of trade secrets does not necessarily compromise their secrecy. Data General Corporation distributed design documentation with its Nova 1200 minicomputer, notifying owners of the confidentiality of these design drawings through contractual agreements and explicit text on the drawings. After acquiring drawings with a Nova 1200 purchase, Digital Computer Controls designed its own nearly identical minicomputer. Digital Computer Controls maintained that its use of the documentation was proper because Data General Corporation inadequately maintained the secrecy of the design drawings by distributing them to many customers. The court found that Data General Corporation had sufficiently protected the secrecy of the drawings and that Digital Computer Controls was thus in violation of trade secret law for improperly using confidential information.

<i>MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.</i>

MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc and Vivendi Games, Inc., 629 F.3d 928, is a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At the district court level, MDY had been found liable under theories of copyright and tort law for selling software that contributed to the breach of Blizzard's End User License Agreement (EULA) and Terms of Use (ToU) governing the World of Warcraft video game software.
The court's ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court in part, upheld in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals ruled that for a software licensee's violation of a contract to constitute copyright infringement, there must be a nexus between the license condition and the licensor’s exclusive rights of copyright. However, the court also ruled, contrary to Chamberlain v. Skylink, that a finding of circumvention under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not require a nexus between circumvention and actual copyright infringement.

<i>Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. v. Software Artisans, Inc.</i>

Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. v. Software Artisans, Inc., 3 F.3d 730 was a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit discussed legal tests for software copyright infringement, and ruled that trade secret misappropriation requires more than circumstantial evidence. The case also ruled on what terms may be reasonable and enforceable in non-compete agreements.

<i>DVD Copy Control Assn, Inc. v. Bunner</i>

DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner was a lawsuit that was filed by the DVD Copy Control Association in California, accusing Andrew Bunner and several others of misappropriation of trade secrets under California's implementation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The case went through several rounds of appeals and was last heard and decided in February 2004 by the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District.

<i>Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp.</i>

Silvaco Data Systems v. Intel Corp was a trade secrets case heard before the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District. Silvaco sued Intel for misappropriation of trade secrets because Intel used software produced by a third-party that had misappropriated Silvaco's trade secrets. The appeals court affirmed the decision of the trial court to grant summary judgment in favor of Intel, finding that merely using infringing software does not constitute a trade secret infringement in itself.

Free and open source software (FOSS) is distributed under a variety of free-software licenses. These licenses differ significantly from other kinds of software licenses. Legal action against open source licenses involves questions about their validity and enforceability.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Gagnon , 542 F. 3d 748 (9th Cir. Sep. 9, 2008).
  2. ↑ Hoffman, Ivan, A Legal Nightmare: The Unwritten License-Even Further Issues Retrieved Nov. 1, 2010.
  3. ↑ Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen Archived 2010-05-16 at the Wayback Machine , 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. Jul. 20, 1990).
  4. ↑ Customer Has Implied License to Software Developed by Contractor Archived July 13, 2011, at the Wayback Machine Retrieved Nov. 1, 2010.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.