Airframe Systems, Inc. v. L-3 Communications Corp.
658 F.3d 100
1st Cir.2011Background
- Airframe developed ARMS, a proprietary aircraft maintenance software, since 1979 and registered four versions of source code (IBM 1981, PC 1984, UNIX 1988, and 2003 version), with registrations effective April 16, 2004.
- L-3 licensed ARMS for object code use; an Airframe employee allegedly copied ARMS source code to L-3’s system in 1997–1998 to enable M3 for newer hardware.
- In August 2003, Airframe discovered the source code on L-3’s system and Airframe claimed L-3 copied to create M3, incorporating ARMS elements and interfaces.
- Airframe sued in federal court alleging copyright infringement; district court granted summary judgment for L-3 because Airframe failed to prove copying of the registered versions.
- Airframe relied on Rosen’s declaration comparing M3 to the updated 2009 ARMS source code, not to the registered 1981/1984/1988 versions, and the court found no admissible evidence linking M3 to the registered content.
- On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for L-3 and also affirmed the district court’s denial of L-3’s attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proving copying and substantial similarity | Airframe showed Rosen’s comparison between M3 and ARMS 2009 version indicates copying. | No evidence shows copying of the registered versions; 2009 version is not the same content as registered works. | Insufficient evidence of copying/substantial similarity to any registered version. |
| Evidence of content for registered works | Airframe relied on comparisons to existing ARMS content to prove copying. | Comparison to the unregistered 2009 version does not prove copying of the registered 1981/1984/1988/2003 versions. | Airframe failed to prove content of registered works; no genuine issue as to copying. |
| Registration as element of infringement claim | Registration is an element Airframe must prove to sustain a § 501 claim. | Registration is a prereq to filing; Airframe must prove ownership and copying, including substantial similarity to the registered works. | Court treated registration as an element; Airframe failed to link M3 to registered versions. |
| Attorney's fees — standard and abuse of discretion | Airframe’s claims were not frivolous; fees should be denied only if appropriate. | The district court erred by not awarding fees where the claim was objectively weak. | Court did not abuse discretion; Fogerty factors supported denial of fees. |
| Court's handling of summary judgment on infringement | There was enough evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact. | L-3 showed Airframe failed to prove copying of registered content. | Summary judgment for L-3 affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Unistrut Corp. v. Power, 280 F.2d 18 (1st Cir.1960) (proof of content of registered edition required for infringement)
- Bridgmon v. Array Sys. Corp., 325 F.3d 572 (5th Cir.2003) (failure to prove content of copyrighted code defeats infringement claim)
- Situation Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. ASP. Consulting LLC, 560 F.3d 53 (1st Cir.2009) (copying and substantial similarity framework for computers)
- T-Peg, Inc. v. Vt. Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97 (1st Cir.2006) (ordinary observer test for substantial similarity)
- Johnson v. Gordon, 409 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.2005) (copying must be shown and be substantial for infringement)
- Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1991) (originality and protectable expression elements in copyright)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2010) (registration is a precondition for filing a copyright infringement claim)