Bernard E. Bulwer, M.D. v. EchoNous, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted EchoNous, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment against Bernard E. Bulwer, M.D., who asserted unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims concerning services and copyrighted materials provided to the company. The court held that EchoNous had not waived its copyright-preemption defense, but concluded that the claims were not preempted because they sought compensation for authorized use rather than enforcement of copyright-exclusive rights. The court nevertheless entered judgment for EchoNous because the parties’ compensation agreement covered the relevant subject matter and Dr. Bulwer failed to establish a genuine dispute regarding reasonable expectations of additional compensation.

Holdings

1. EchoNous did not waive its copyright-preemption defense because Bulwer had fair notice of the copyright and intellectual-property issues and suffered no unfair prejudice from the defense being raised after the answer stage.
2. Bulwer's unjust-enrichment and quantum-meruit claims were not preempted by federal copyright law because they sought compensation for authorized use of his materials rather than enforcement of copyright-exclusive rights.
3. Bulwer could not recover under unjust-enrichment or quantum-meruit theories because a valid contract governed the same subject matter and defined the parties' obligations.
4. Even assuming some materials were outside the pre-ICA contract, Bulwer failed to provide definite and competent evidence creating a genuine dispute over whether he reasonably expected additional compensation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether EchoNous waived its copyright-preemption defense by failing to plead it in its answer.
2. Whether Bulwer's unjust-enrichment and quantum-meruit claims were preempted by federal copyright law.
3. Whether the existence of a contract covering the parties' relationship barred recovery under unjust-enrichment and quantum-meruit theories.
4. Whether Bulwer presented sufficient evidence of a reasonable expectation of additional compensation to create a genuine dispute of material fact.

Disposition

other