Jacobsen v. Katzer

535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P manages an open-source software group called Java Model Railroad Interface (JMRI). JMRI created a computer program called DecoderPro. The program files are available for download and use by the public free of charge from SourceForge. The downloadable files contain copyright notices and refer the user to a 'COPYING' file, which clearly sets forth the terms of an open source License. D offers a competing software product, Decoder Commander, which is also used to program decoder chips. During the development of Decoder Commander, one of D's predecessors or employees is alleged to have downloaded the decoder definition files from DecoderPro and used portions of these files as part of the Decoder Commander software. Decoder Commander did not comply with the terms of the License. Decoder Commander software did not include (1) the authors' names, (2) JMRI copyright notices, (3) references to the COPYING file, (4) an identification of SourceForge or JMRI as the original source of the definition files, and (5) a description of how the files or computer code had been changed from the original source code. Decoder Commander also changed various computer file names of DecoderPro files without providing a reference to the original JMRI files or information on where to get the Standard Version. P sued D for copyright infringement and moved for a preliminary injunction. P sued D for copyright infringement and moved for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the violation of the terms of the Artistic License constituted copyright infringement and that, under Ninth Circuit law, irreparable harm could be presumed in a copyright infringement case. The District Court held that D's alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create liability for copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist. P had a cause of action only for breach of contract, rather than an action for copyright infringement. The Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. P appealed.