Adherence v. CVS Health Corporation
2:24-cv-01590
| D. Nev. | Jun 25, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Adherence claimed ownership of copyrights in MMAS-4 and MMAS-8 adherence scale questionnaires, assigned to it in 2023 by Dr. Morisky.
- Adherence alleged CVS Pharmacy and Asembia, LLC used unauthorized copies of these forms via the Asembia-1 platform since at least 2016.
- Plaintiff became aware of the alleged infringement through a CVS employee and filed claims for copyright infringement, intentional interference, and deceptive trade practices.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the copyright claim, intentional interference, and deceptive trade practices claim, arguing the forms are not copyrightable under the blank forms doctrine.
- Plaintiff consented to the dismissal of intentional interference and deceptive trade practices claims.
- The court ruled on the motion to dismiss, analyzing whether the MMAS forms qualify for copyright protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the MMAS-4 and MMAS-8 forms copyrightable? | Forms convey information through their use, creative subtext, and unique compilation. | Forms are uncopyrightable blank forms designed to record—not convey—information. | Forms are blank forms and not copyrightable as a matter of law. |
| Does application of the algorithm confer copyright? | The algorithm's use with the forms conveys protected information. | Copyright does not protect ideas, systems, or methods, only fixed expression. | Application of the algorithm does not make the forms copyrightable. |
| Is subtextual meaning protectable? | Instructions and language provide creative subtext deserving protection. | Copyright protects only fixed expression, not subtext or ideas. | Subtextual meaning is not a protectable expression under copyright law. |
| Does creative compilation of form elements warrant copyright? | Structure and sequence show originality and creativity. | Registration as a compilation wasn't claimed; even so, the forms still fall under the blank forms doctrine. | Creative arrangement does not overcome the blank forms doctrine; no copyright protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Rule 8 pleading standards for dismissals)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility requirement for pleadings)
- Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (origin of the blank forms copyright doctrine)
- Triad Systems Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co., Inc., 64 F.3d 1330 (copyright infringement elements)
- Bibbero Sys., Inc. v. Colwell Sys., Inc., 893 F.2d 1104 (application of blank forms doctrine)
- Edwin K. Williams & Co. v. Edwin K. Williams & Co.-E., 542 F.2d 1053 (exception for forms with explanatory material)