Anita Gogia is a IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The conflict of laws has often resulted in interesting dilemmas for courts where precedent cannot be readily applied, necessitating a case-by-case approach. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit a that held a French court’s ruling was unenforceable due to a conflict in copyright laws between the countries.

Background

The case between De Fontbrune and Alan Wofsy regarding photographs of Picasso’s paintings dates to 1991. taken by Christian Zervos, with added creative elements through deliberate choices of lighting, lens filters and framing, were published in Zervos Catalogue in 1932. In 1979, the rights to the publication were acquired by De Fontbrune. In 1991, Wofsy, with , published De Fontrbrune’s images in “The Picasso Project”. De Fontbrune held the position that the to approve such use. , in 1998, the police confiscated copies of Wofsy’s book, and De Fontbrune sued for copyright infringement.

In 1998, the French courts ruled that the photographs were used for , and thus were not entitled to copyright protection. This, however, was in 2001 with a ruling against Wofsy, who became responsible for . The appellate court agreed that Zervos’ photographs were protected by copyright, as it involved sufficient creativity.  Wofsy appealed to the French Civil Supreme Court, but his case the damages owed to De Fontbrune.

In 2011, to enforce the decision in the States, De Fontbrune brought the case to California who . The District Court held that the French decision infringed Wofsy’s freedom of speech and that Wofsy’s books are “ and that astreinte (monetary damages for copyright infringement) do not apply because of the US’s fair use doctrine. The plaintiffs argued that the book has a commercial purpose, which weighs against fair use. The District Court held that such nature of use does not create a presumption against fair use for public policy reasons. The US’s disregard of another country’s ruling  indicated that the court found it “repugnant” to domestic law.

Appeal

De Fontbrune the District Court’s holding — one that rejected the French judgement. The appellate court, the Ninth Circuit, noted that there is a high bar for repugnancy, and that a mere conflict of laws is insufficient to meet it. Further, the judgment must be to recognize standards of morality and the general interests of the citizens. The Ninth Circuit also notedd that the French judgment is identified under the California Recognition Act.

The Ninth Circuit that the book  was non-infringing for the purposes of — that is, the Court does not consider it to be “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research purposes.”  Rather, the Court held that the use was infringing because it is simply a and the one that could rebalance fair use in Wofsy’s favour.

The Ninth Circuit used the following four fair use factors to reach their conclusion:

• the purpose and character of use;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and
• the effect on potential market or value of the copyrighted work

The Court had doubts whether Wofsy could use the fair use defence in the States and thus the inability to use the defence under French law was not in “.”

The discrepancy between the decisions of the District Court and Appellate Court may have stemmed from the subjective methodology of the judges of balancing the copyright laws and fair use defence scope with First Amendment freedom of speech rights. Nevertheless, the fair use defence remains a gamble for artists and creatives.

On December 2, 2022, counsel for Wofsy for a Writ of Certiorari —judicial review— to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The post Photographs Taken 91 Years Ago Still in Conflict Today appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Anita Gogia is a IPilogue Writer and a 2L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

In , the Federal Court of Canada invalided patents for interactive program guide (“IPG”) technology and clarified a reasonable royalty as the appropriate remedy had the patents been found valid and infringed.

Rovi supplies , and Videotron is a telecommunications corporation providing cable services and . IPGs are interactive menus that you may have used to select/search programming listings rather than viewing them on a paper guide.

Rovi’s revenue model is to license a portfolio for a rate without consideration for the number of patents. Videotron did not renew its license which expired in 2016. Videotron claimed they licensed to avoid litigation, and later realized that Rovi’s portfolio is obsolete. Notably, Rovi wanted to double the royalty rate and when Videotron asked Rovi to “.” Rovi did not provide an adequate answer.

Rovi that Videotron infringed four patents, which Videotron were invalid. Rovi’s patents were held due to obviousness and anticipated knowledge in consideration of prior art and knowledge of the skilled person. Rovi’s patents were secured in the 1990s, one of which claims a “”.  The Court held that it was obvious to the industry that IPGs would be prominent in the future and that 1990s were “.” Therefore, or obvious extensions.

The Court’s for denying the remedy of accounting of profits is significant, as not much caselaw has clarified this equitable remedy. Videotron’s products are classified as “complex products” since the patented technology is a small part of the overall value of the product —- not analogous to a pharmaceutical product. With standard patent cases, patentees can be granted ‘accounting for profits’ as a remedy. The availability of such a remedy is questionable with non-standard cases. The for awarding an ‘accounting for profits’  are as follows:

First, the Court did not find undue delay by Rovi in pursuing litigation against Videotron.

However, upon examining Rovi’s conduct, the Court found that Rovi operated in bad faith — that Rovi was using “” and not disclosing the list of infringed patents to Videotron to prevent them from designing around them. The recognition of “hard-ball” as a characteristic of bad faith conduct is a novel interpretation of a traditional equitable ground.

Second, the judge recognized Rovi’s “” into royalty deals and took note of Rovi’s delay in prosecuting patents which results in the problem of “holdup”. Granting an accounting remedy in this case would set an undesirable precedent contrary to the purposes of IPR as it gives patentees leverage in negotiations where the royalty would reflect the .

Third, Rovi that Videotron wilfully infringed their patents, however, the judge concluded that Videotron refusing to renew their agreement was actually based on a “reasonable assessment of the necessity of the patents”.

As the court considered the fourth factor neutral, it moved on to an interesting analysis of the complexity of calculating an accounting of profits — that inventors are entitled to that portion of which is causally attributable to the invention. However, patentees seeking an accounting remedy must provide a sound and reliable way to calculate profits. Here, the Courts found that Rovi’s proposal for calculating Videotron’s profits complex and unreliable, said to be based on “” evidence. The court noted caselaw describing that “.”

Instead, the Court accepted Videotron’s proposal of the appropriate remedy as a “.” It was a safer approach to argue a reasonable royalty cap of $150,000 per feature based on design-around rather than arguing that the royalty was zero, since the non-infringing alternative is to remove the IPGs all together.

The post Discretionary Remedies Clarified, and Videotron Ltd Successfully Defends Against Much Litigation-Experienced Rovi Guides Inc. appeared first on IPOsgoode.