Tennessee IP Law Blog

Digital Drilling Data Sys., L.L.C. v. Petrolink Servs., Inc. , No. 19-20116, 2020 WL 3603953 (5th Cir. July 2, 2020) https://www.drillingpoint.com/p2797/cost-reduction-improving-sweet-spot-coverage/ Topics: Software, Preemption, Data Scraping, Unjust Enrichment, DMCA Takeaways: This 5th Circuit verdict indicates a possible split on the issue of data scraping previously addressed by the 11th Circuit in Compulife v. Newman . Here, Digidrill did not challenge the District Court's holding that the drilling data scraped from their system by Petrolink was un-copyrightable facts so it was not addressed by the 5th Circuit aside from being mentioned in a footnote. But in Compulife , the 11th Circuit found that the insurance pricing data that was scraped individually were publicly available facts, but that in the aggregate was not and that data scraping "limitless amounts" of data may constitute improper means. The data scraping in both of these cases deal with "factual"...

Compulife Software Inc. v. Newman , No. 18-12004, 2020 WL 2549505 (11th Cir. May 20, 2020) Topic:  Trade Secrets & Misappropriation Takeaways: Publicly available data obtained through large-scale data scraping hack of Compulife's system should not have been considered on an individual piece-by-piece basis of the insurance quote data obtained, but rather the aggregate block of information obtained when considering an improper means and trade-secret appropriation analysis. A site's lack of usage restriction regarding publicly available information does not automatically make Data Scraping through robotic means proper. Court generally opines that using a bot to collect "infeasible amounts" of data through data/web scraping may be improper means. This is Part II to the discussion of Compulife Software Inc. v. Newman .  Part I, addressing the Copyright aspect of this case, is available at: https://tennesseetechnologylaw.blogspot.com/2020/05/abstr...

Compulife Software Inc. v. Newman , No. 18-12004, 2020 WL 2549505 (11th Cir. May 20, 2020) Topic:  Abstraction/Filtration Anaylsis & Burden Shifting Takeaway:  After an infringement plaintiff has demonstrated that he holds a valid copyright and that the defendant engaged in factual copying, the defendant bears the burden of proving—as part of the filtration analysis—that the elements he copied from a copyrighted work are unprotectable. Overall, this is a very in depth and complicated case that involves multiple aspects of IP law. As such, this post is limited to the issue of copyright infringement and protectability under the abstraction/filtration test. Check back next week for part 2 regarding the trade-secret issues! naaip.org/logo             compulife.com Background & Parties There’s nothing easy about this case. The facts are complicated, and the governing law is tangled. At its essence, it’s a case about h...