Summary
This Eighth Circuit opinion addresses whether a copyright registration is invalid under 17 U.S.C. § 411(b) when the application contains inaccurate information about the first publication date of the copyrighted software. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding the plaintiff lacked a valid certificate of registration because its employee knew the submitted source code post-dated the claimed May 2000 publication date. The appellate court reversed, holding that a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding whether the plaintiff actually knew the API references in the code indicated a later creation date, precluding summary judgment. The court declined to resolve the broader legal question of whether § 411(b) requires intent to defraud or merely actual knowledge, as the factual dispute controls the outcome.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a copyright registration is invalid under 17 U.S.C. §411(b) when the applicant had actual knowledge that the submitted source code was not the first published version.
- Whether summary judgment was proper where a genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding the applicant's actual knowledge.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was improper because a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to LADS's actual knowledge; the district court's grant of summary judgment is reversed.
- The court declined to decide the substantive question, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its finding that genuine factual disputes preclude summary judgment.
Key quotations
“Because the record did not ‘in fact bear out [Agilis’s] claim that no genuine dispute existed,’ . . . [LADS] was not required to provide affirmative evidence.”
Factual background
LADS licensed its GPStrac software to Agilis from 2004‑2009. In 2014 LADS sought copyright registration, claiming a first publication date of May 1, 2000, but the submitted code contained a 2004 copyright notice. After the Copyright Office identified the problem, LADS resubmitted corrected code that omitted the 2004 notice. During discovery, Agilis produced the original code showing API references that could not have existed in 2000, raising a dispute over LADS's actual knowledge of the inaccuracy.
Procedural history
The district court granted summary judgment, holding LADS's copyright invalid under 17 U.S.C. §411(b). LADS appealed.
Remand instructions
Proceed with further litigation consistent with this opinion, including resolving the factual dispute as to LADS's actual knowledge of the inaccuracy in the copyright registration.