PLS 780 Final

Section 1
Case Briefs

Section 1: Case Briefs

Case: Comcast v. FCC [600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010)]
Case citation obtained from trial copy of book, Case text obtained from Westlaw

In 2007 subscribers of Comcast high speed internet found the company was interfering
with their peer-to-peer networking applications. Challenging the interference, Free Press
and Public Knowledge filed a complaint with the FCC; stating Comcast violated the
FCCs Internet Policy Statement.
Comcast its decision was necessary to manage scarce network capacity, however, in 2008
Facts

the FCC issued an order censuring Comcast from interfering with peer-to-peer software
by stating that the agency had jurisdiction under the Communications Act of 1934 and that
Comcasts method of bandwidth management breached federal policy.
Comcast complied with the order, however, in 2010 it filed an appeal in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Does the ancillary jurisdiction over cable internet network management under the

Issue

language of the Communications Act of 1934?

The Court of Appeals held that the FCC failed to justify exercise of ancillary authority to
regulate internet service providers network management practices. The court decided that

Holding

for an issue to fall within an agencys authority, the agency need only have ancillary
authority; a sufficient statutory support that the agency must some action in the first
instance of the issue.
The court used a two-part test for ancillary authority previously laid out in American
Library Association v. FCC; a commission may exercise ancillary authority if: (1) the
Commission's general jurisdictional granted under Title I [of the Communications Act]
covers the regulated subject and (2) the regulations are reasonably ancillary to the
Commission's effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities. The court

Reasoning

ruled the FCC satisfied the first part, however, it failed to satisfy the second part. The
FCC failed to demonstrate that its actions of barring Comcast from interfering in the use
of peer-to-peer apps was reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of its statutory
mandated authority. The court reasoned that by accepting the FCCs arguments, it would
virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether.
It affects network neutrality principles, as well as a wide variety of broadband issues, like

Rule

enforcing internet service providers advertised broadband speeds or ensuring providers

dont block video streaming websites.

Section 1: Case Briefs

Case: Borders v. State Board of Equalization [129 Cal. App. 4th 1179, 29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 176 (2005)]
Case citation obtained from trial copy of book, Case text obtained from Westlaw

In July of 1999, the Board notified Online it was required to collect and remit use taxes on
all sales to California purchasers because affiliate Borders acted as Onlines agent by
accepting return merchandise. In 2000 the board issued a notice of determination for
unpaid taxes, plus interest and penalties; in 2001 the State Board of Equalization issued a
Facts

notice of redetermination for unpaid taxes, plus interest for sales to California purchases
for the period between April 1998 and September 1999. In 2003 Online filed a complaint
in the San Francisco Superior Court stating it was not a California retailer and was not
required to pay taxes; the Board entered a motion for summary judgment granted by the
court and Online timely appealed.
Did Online have sufficient presence in the state of California through Borders to justify

Issues

imposing a tax collection burden?

The court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment originally entered by the Superior
Court of San Francisco; holding that online was covered by Section 6203(c)(2) because of
Onlines policy for providing returns at Borders stores, the imposition of a tax on Online

Holding

did not violate a commerce clause and that despite not having Onlines return policy
posted on its website during the entire disputed period, Online still had sufficient physical
presence in California to support a finding of substantial connection.
The court of appeals affirmed on the basis that:
(1) retail stores in a state act as authorized representatives of Internet retailers within
meaning use of tax stature;
(2) for the purpose of using tax stature, the term selling includes all activities that are
necessary parts of making sales;

Reasoning

(3) under the definition of selling, the retail store was acting for the purposes of
selling personal property in the state by accepting refunds of personal property sold by
Internet retailer; and
(4) the connection between state and Internet retailer was sufficient for imposing use taxes
under the Commerce Clause.
Sets precedence for establishing a connection between an online retailer and a state for the

Rule

purpose of collecting sales tax.

Section 1: Case Briefs

Case: Barnes v. Yahoo [570 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2009)]
Case citation obtained from trial copy of book, Case text obtained from Westlaw

In 2004 Celia Barnes ended a relationship with her boyfriend; who later created fraudulent
online profiles of her and posted nude photos; in accordance with Yahoo! policy, Barnes
contacted Yahoo! in writing several times to have the profiles removed and no action was
Facts

taken. In 2005 Barnes filed a complaint against Yahoo!; Yahoo! removed the action to
federal court and moved to dismiss stating they were protected under Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act of 1996. The court granted Yahoo!s motion to dismiss;
Barnes timely appealed.
Does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 apply to Yahoo!, Inc. as

Issue

an internet service provider?

The court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for further
proceedings.

Holding

The court found that the negligent undertaking claim was barred by the Communications
Decency act, however, the promissory estoppel claim was not barred.
The court reasoned that a plaintiff could not sue someone for publishing third-party
content simply by changing the name of the theory from defamation to negligence. Nor
could they escape Section 230(c) by labeling as negligent undertaking an action that is

Reasoning

essentially that of a publisher. Further, a court cannot infer a promise from an attempt to
de-publish of the sort that might support tort liability under Section 323 of the
Restatement (Second) of Torts.
Sets the precedence that internet service providers are not responsible for material posted

Rule

by third-parties using the services.

Section 1: Case Briefs

Case: Boring v. Google [598 F.Supp2d 695]
Case citation obtained from classmate, Case text obtained from Westlaw

In April of 2008 the Borings filed a suit against Google for invasion of privacy,
trespassing, injunctive relief, negligence and conversion based on Googles Street View
program. The program offers free access to panoramic, navigable views of streets in and
Facts

around major cities throughout the United States. The Borings sought compensation in the
excess of $25,000 for each claim, plus punitive damages and attorney fees. In May of
2008 Google filed a motion to invoke diversity jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss. The
Borings amended their complaint and Google filed a motion to dismiss.
Did Googles Street View program violate the Borings right to privacy by posting photos

Issues

Holding

of their home?
The District Court granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The District Court reasoned that:
(1) plaintiffs did not state claim for tort of intrusion upon seclusion;
(2) plaintiffs did not state claim for publicity given to private life;
(3) search engine did not have duty of care to use internal controls to avoid trespassing on

Reasoning

plaintiffs' property;
(4) plaintiffs failed to state trespass claim;
(5) plaintiffs failed to state unjust enrichment claim; and
(6) injunction against search engine was not warranted.

Rule

Supporting trespassing claim damages against internet programs becomes very difficult.

Section 1: Case Briefs

Case: Mattel v. MGA Entertainment [2009 US App Lexis 29187]
Case citation obtained from classmate, Case text obtained from www.h2o.law.harvard.edu and www.arelaw.com

In October of 2000 Bryant, a designer at Mattel entered into a contract with MGA
Entertainment and subsequently gave his 2-week notice to Mattel. Bryant used parts from
Mattels Barbie dolls for his prototype and kept his involvement a secret. In phase I of the
Facts

lawsuit the jury found MGA had infringed upon Mattel and awarded Mattel $10 million
dollars. Mattel also obtained an injunction on MGA from producing the Bratz dolls; MGA
appealed.
Did breach of contract occur when Bryant under the employment of Mattel began to

Issues

consult with MGA and did MGAs Bratz dolls infringe on Mattels copyright?
The appeals court found that the district court many various error and as such, reversed

Holding

the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The court reasoned that the courts imposing of constructive trust forcing MGA to

Reasoning

relinquish its equity to Mattel was an abuse of discretion and must be vacated. The court
also reasoned that Mattel could not hold a monopoly on fashionable dolls with attitude.
Provides useful guidance on the scope of copyright protections and how seemingly clear

Rule

contracts may be viewed as ambiguous.

Section 1: Case Briefs

Case: Viad v. Houghton [2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17447 (E.D. III. Feb. 26, 2010)]
Case citation obtained from trial copy of book, Case text obtained from Google Scholar

In 1997 Viad a Delaware corporation hired Houghton as a designer for its division
Exhibitgroup. In 2007 Houghton decided to participate in a Management Incentive Plan.
In March of 2008 Houghton received a $102,000 payout through the plan; in September
Facts

2008 Houghton resigned from Exhibit group and in October of 2008 went to work for a
competing company. In October of 2008 Viad requested repayment of the $102,000,
Houghton refused; in November of 2008 Viad filed a complaint against Houghton.
Did breach of provisions occur when Houghton left Viad Corp. and went to work with its

Issue

competitor The Freeman Companies and should repayment of provisions occur?

The Court granted Plaintiff Viads motion for summary judgment and denied Defendant

Holding

Houghtons motion.
The Court reasoned that Houghtons did breach the provisions of the incentive plan when
she went to work for the competition. The court reasoned that Viad is not requesting
repayment of any salaries tied to the incentive plan. The incentive plan did not act as a

Reasoning

non-compete clause; Houghton was free to pursue a career elsewhere, however, any
employee participating in the Management Incentive Plan agreed that should they go to
work for the competition they would forfeit bonuses paid through the plan.
Provided the clauses in the incentive plans do not interfere with post-employment

Rule

competition, forfeiture of bonuses received through the incentive plans are legal.

Section 1: Case Briefs

Case: Amazon.com v. BarnesandNoble.com [239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001)]
Case citation obtained from trial copy of book, Case text obtained from www.cyber.law.harvard.edu

In October of 1999 Amazon.com brought a suit against BarnesandNoble.com alleging

infringement of patent. Amazon.com filed a motion for preliminary injunction that was
Facts

granted by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
BarnesandNoble.com timely appealed.
Did BarnesandNobel.com infringe on Amazon.coms patent for 1-click actions when they

Issues

began using Express Lane on their site and was Amazon.coms patent valid?
The court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further

Holding

proceedings.
The court reasoned that although Amazon.com demonstrated the likelihood of success on
infringement, BarnesandNoble.com raised substantial questions on the validity of

Reasoning

Amazon.coms patent. The court concluded that the prerequisites for entry of a
preliminary injunction were lacking and that BarnesandNoble.com casted enough doubt
on the injunction but that ultimately the validity of the issue should be resolved at trial.
Raised the issue on whether patents dealing with site efficiencies could ultimately be

Rule

challenged in their validity.

Section 1: Case Briefs

Case: Tiffany v. eBay [576 F.Supp2d 463]
Case citation obtained from classmate, Case text obtained from Westlaw

In May 2003 Tiffany complained to eBay about the sale of counterfeit Tiffany jewelry on
Facts

eBay. In June of 2004 Tiffany filed a suit against eBay. In July 2004 Tiffany amended its
complaint. In 2008 the court found in favor of defendant.
Did eBay infringe on Tiffanys trademark, cause trademark dilution and false

Issues

Holding

advertisement?
The court entered judgment in favor of defendant eBay.
The court reasoned that:
(1) use of trademarks in advertising, on homepage of website, was protected, nominative
fair use;
(2) practice of purchasing sponsored links to advertise trademarked merchandise was
protected by defense of nominative fair use;
(3) reasonable anticipation standard could not serve as basis to impose liability for
contributory trademark infringement;

Reasoning

(4) website exercised sufficient control and monitoring over its website to be
contributorily liable for trademark infringement by sellers on website;
(5) general knowledge as to counterfeiting on website was insufficient to impose
affirmative duty on website to remedy that problem;
(6) website did not engage in contributory trademark infringement;
(7) refusal of website to automatically and permanently suspend sellers upon filing of
NOCI did not constitute per se contributory trademark infringement; and
(8) use of trademarks in advertising by website was protected, nominative fair use.
Promotes electronic commerce because it removes the burden of policing for trademarks

Rule

from intermediate marketplaces like eBay.

Section 1: Case Briefs

Case: Corbis v. Amazon.com [351 F.Supp2d 1090]
Case citation obtained from classmate, Case text obtained from Westlaw

In June of 2003, Corbis filed a lawsuit against Amazon for copyright infringement for two
photographs Amazon places on the website IMDb.com and other being sold on Amazons
Facts

website. Amazon entered motions for summary / partial judgments. Corbis entered
motions for partial judgments.
Did Amazon infringe on Corbiss copyright by selling Corbiss photographs from third

Issues

party vendors on its e-commerce platforms?

The court granted in part and denied in part.
Amazons motion for summary judgment under DMCA is granted.
Corbiss motion for partial summary judgment regarding Safe Harbor qualifications
under DMCA is denied.
Corbiss motion for partial summary judgment precluding application of DMCA for lack
of compliance is denied.
Corbiss motion for partial summary judgment as to DMCA eligibility for its IMDb
platform is granted.

Holding

Amazons motion for partial summary judgment denying Corbiss direct copyright
infringement claims is granted.
Corbiss motion for partial summary judgment against Amazon for direct and vicarious
copyright liability is denied.
Amazons motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs state law claims is granted.
Amazons motion for partial summary judgment on copyright and copyright misuse is
denied.
Amazons motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs actual damages is denied.

Amazons motion for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs claim and damages for
tortious interference with business relationships is granted.
The court reasoned that:
(1) Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) protected service provider from copyright
liability for 230 images displayed by vendors;
(2) pending registrations did not confer federal jurisdiction over copyright claims;
(3) partial summary judgment in favor of provider was precluded on claims brought
Reasoning

against it for direct copyright infringement and actual damages for infringement;
(4) copyright holder could not maintain implied reverse passing off claim under Lanham
Act since that claim overlapped with its copyright claims and the copyright laws provided
an adequate remedy; and
(5) Communications Decency Act (CDA) barred state law claims against Internet service
provider for publishing content provided primarily by third party vendors.
Electronic vendor shops are protected from copyright infringement for material sold by

Rule

third parties on their platforms.

Section 1: Case Briefs

Case: Calder v. Jones [465 U.S. 783 (1984)]
Case citation obtained from trial copy of book, Case text obtained from Westlaw

Jones an actress living and working in California filed a lawsuit in California for libel
against Calder and South, editor and reporter respectively for the Nation Enquirer, a
Florida based corporation with its largest circulation in California. The Superior Court of
Facts

California ruled in favor of the defendants citing the First Amendment trumpeted Due
Process Clause. The California Court of Appeals reversed the ruling stating First
Amendment arguments were irrelevant to the determination of jurisdiction.
Does the sale of a magazine article provide sufficient minimum contact to permit the

Issues

assertion of personal jurisdiction over the editor of that article, pursuant to the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
The United States Supreme Court held that California held personal jurisdiction over the
defendants. The court held that intentional acts taking place in one state but aimed to

Holding

cause harm in another state subject the defendants to personal jurisdiction consistent with
due process.
The court in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Rehnquist held that the editor and
writer of the magazine were aware that the magazine had a significant circulation in
California, the plaintiff resided in California and the allegation in the article would harm

Reasoning

the plaintiffs career in California. The court further rejected any First Amendment
considerations stating that the defendants could asset a First Amendment defense against
the claim, but not against the state courts jurisdiction to hear the case.
A state can exercise jurisdiction over a Defendant based on the effects test; a state can

Rule

exercise personal jurisdiction over a party who causes effects in state through actions
performed elsewhere with regards to any cause of action arising from these effects.